A) Like religion and morality, that could've been achieved in better ways. It's a common thing on the WEPR section that is a viable argument - Religion doesn't offer anything that without it you couldn't achieve, exact same thing here.

I'd like to first of all state that, whether or not you believe in any sort of religion, you can't achieve life in heaven without it. Anyways, back on topic. I really don't think that there could have been a better way for multiplayer gaming to get popular. COD makes it easy for "noobs" to pick up a controller and relax, while still keeping a challenge for the true gamers.

Not necessarily. There's MUCH more detail in destruction in Battlefield than CoD ever has, there's much more detail in pretty much everything in Crysis 1 than CoD, and gameplay in CoD is terrible. You seem to be looking at positive results from bad things - it's the same with anything, a poorly eventful life can make a highly moral indidividual.

I'm saying, back in the day, COD had some of the best graphics, as well as models. I don't think(and this is my opinion) that graphics would be as evolved as they are today if it weren't for the first four COD games. The gameplay isn't terrible, at least not on console. I don't know about PC, I haven't played much COD on PC, but PC gaming is terrible anyways.

C) I've seen better come from Paradox Interactive (creators of Magicka) than Infinity Ward - it will still probably be better than the joint creations of Sledgehammer, Raven and the remnants of Infinity.

First of all, Raven had quite a popular game a few years back called Conduit. It may not have sold as many copies as the bigger franchises, but it was a good game. As for Sledgehammer, its president was the supervising producer for Deadspace, which was extremely popular and well made. I could care less about Infinity Ward, they're just on as a consultant. As for Magika... that game is is horribly boring. The gameplay doesn't click, the story sucks, and its horribly made.

D) Same reasoning as A. Also, hell no I'm not gonna leave >:( , because what I'm saying is that those aren't viable reasons as to why it's done more good than bad. It's an unnecessary bad and thus no good can make up for it. That - and the greediness inspired others to do the same, doing it to make others aware of it is like bullying someone to make them stand up for themselves. It's backwards and stupid.

The game itself has done no harm to gaming, Activision has, but not COD. If the game is so bad, than why are MW2 and Black Ops the two biggest media sales in recorded history? Your judgement is flawed and biased. No one, other than Activision has bullied the gaming community, they have to make money off it. I personally don't see Activision bulling gamers, but more the developers.

It's not hating, it's a fair and logical judgement. If you would like to construe it as "hating" then so be it - I just laid out the way I intend it to be, and I haven't done a great deal (if anything) to make it appear otherwise.

I mainly say you're hating because every one of your arguments is your own opinion, you have nothing to back you. At least I have reasons. All I can say is come back when you're ready to grow up a little and have a complete fact supported discussion.

HIGHFIRE! TAG OUT! *tag* alright, ma turn.

I really don't think that there could have been a better way for multiplayer gaming to get popular. COD makes it easy for "noobs" to pick up a controller and relax, while still keeping a challenge for the true gamers.

I love how the community of today forgets our history, their memory only seems to go back to 2007, 2006 at the most if concerning Oblivion.

I guess no one will remember the one title that popularized Xbox LIVE, the first console online platform. Halo 2 was the biggest game of its era, easily sitting next to Half-Life 2 as the greatest games of the generation. no to mention Halo:Combat Evolved, the game that defined Console Shooters - regen health, two-weapon slot, nearly everything that's in an FPS of today was due to Halo: Combat evolved. The only exception is Half-Life 2, but then again Valve games follow their own rules of physics and gravity. To Recap - Halo 2 was the game that brought console online play to the level it is today

'm saying, back in the day, COD had some of the best graphics, as well as models. I don't think(and this is my opinion) that graphics would be as evolved as they are today if it weren't for the first four COD games. The gameplay isn't terrible, at least not on console. I don't know about PC, I haven't played much COD on PC, but PC gaming is terrible anyways.

Starcraft II. Minecraft. Steam. Total War. Civilization. Spore. World of Warcraft. Amnesia The Dark Descent. Terraria. just some of the fantastic games PC owners are entitled to and not consoles.

Let's see, graphics is one of the worst arguments one can have as to why a game is good. look no further than minecraft for that explanation. But to let you have your fun, I'll rebut.

CoD 1 - ok graphics. Not as good as well, you know , Knight of the Old Republic, a game that released that year.

CoD 2 - it was pretty good but - oh wait, no, God of War was released on 2005 as well, better graphics!

CoD 3 aka the Forgotten CoD - 2006? Let's see... nope. I believe a little title called Gears of War with nearly perfect graphics was released... yea it was. not to mention the guys who made the graphics engine found in CoD made Gears.

MW - Wait, didn't Crysis come out this year?

WaW - Fallout 3's monstrous world is stunning enough, but the fact it LOOKS SO **** GOOD is all the more impressive

MW2 - Uncharted 2 on the PS3. PS3. hm, i wonder what's going to have the better graphics...

BO - All of the GOTY contenders of 2010. Mass Effect 2, Red Dead: Redemption, God of War 3, even wii exclusive Super Mario Galaxy 2

an illegitimate argument, but still, one i have dismantled. btw, graphics getting better is just a natural part of gaming.

First of all, Raven had quite a popular game a few years back called Conduit.

Ah yes, you mean the Wii exclusive FPS that claimed it had a graphics engine like Gears of War? the one that has a 69 on metacritic, and a 64 for its sequel? bah.

It may not have sold as many copies as the bigger franchises, but it was a good game.

I do believe the facts above destroy that argument.

As for Sledgehammer, its president was the supervising producer for Deadspace, which was extremely popular and well made.

Interesting, but one man does not make a company, as Gabe Newell has yet to learn.

could care less about Infinity Ward, they're just on as a consultant.

lolwut? no, they're making the campaign with Sledgehammer. All of the good parts of Infinity Ward ran off to form Respawn Entertainment under EA, Activision's biggest enemy.

As for Magika... that game is is horribly boring. The gameplay doesn't click, the story sucks, and its horribly made.

HOW DARE YOU!!!! the game is imaginative, allows the player to mix and match spells, and overall rocks as an innovative experience. However, when you're a fan of a franchise that NEVER CHANGES IN FOUR YEARS, i guess innovation kinda is low on your radar.

The game itself has done no harm to gaming, Activision has, but not COD. If the game is so bad, than why are MW2 and Black Ops the two biggest media sales in recorded history? Your judgement is flawed and biased. No one, other than Activision has bullied the gaming community, they have to make money off it. I personally don't see Activision bulling gamers, but more the developers.

Well at least you understand Activision's evil, I'll give you that. Anyway, we're talking about QUALITY, not QUANTITY. Let's look at the Wii spectrum, they're biggest selling game was Wii Sports, as simple and bad as a game can get. Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops are just copy-pasted of MW1, a ridiculously good game that was *****d over for the next four years.

The effect of games as a whole? a standstill. If developers start to see that CoD makes this much money with this kind of repetition, they're going to just remake CoD, call it something different, and hope someone buys it. That's the Homefront effect, and luckily we were saved by Crysis 2 before a quality standstill occurred.

I mainly say you're hating because every one of your arguments is your own opinion, you have nothing to back you. At least I have reasons. All I can say is come back when you're ready to grow up a little and have a complete fact supported discussion.

he does have something to back him, ME. And your reasons? dismantled by ME. my facts stand strong and yours stand crippled in the dust.

LONG LIVE BATTLEFIELD 3

-Chillz

while still keeping a challenge for the true gamers.

That is a fairly dumb thing to say. Making a challenge "for true gamers" isn't by making bad players just as good through the game mechanics, it's through having players fight others at their "skill level". How do you think professional gamers will get better? Practice against others, you can obviously improve some things by yourself but nowhere near in such a realistic (as in against another player) situation -- not even Combat Training.

I'm saying, back in the day, COD had some of the best graphics, as well as models. I don't think(and this is my opinion) that graphics would be as evolved as they are today if it weren't for the first four COD games.

It's not a bad thing to believe in - but I can't say I agree.

The gameplay isn't terrible, at least not on console. I don't know about PC, I haven't played much COD on PC, but PC gaming is terrible anyways.

...
Okay,

HIGHFIRE! TAG OUT! *tag* alright, ma turn.

Thanks man.

Actually wait. I just read the quote at the bottom of Chillz posts. Self-defense FTW.
I'm back babeh!

First of all, Raven had quite a popular game a few years back called Conduit. It may not have sold as many copies as the bigger franchises, but it was a good game

Try backing that up with proof or something, what specifically made it good or unique, and why exactly does one game repay for a developer? Was it a shooter? If it weren't, or even if it were, where is the experience to handle CoD's reins? FPS' as shown between Battlefield, CoD, Halo and Crysis can be very different.

As for Sledgehammer, its president was the supervising producer for Deadspace, which was extremely popular and well made.

Well made how exactly? Where I last quoted you it didn't matter that it wasn't so popular - it was a good game, now it's just "popular and good"... Also, I seen Deadspace, it seems very focused on Horror but it follows the simple formula of "Oh no she's going around the corner! *Walks around the corner*" "BLAERGH!!!!" "Ahhhh! *Pew pew*"

Also, I could actually go further by saying Amnesia was indefinitely a better developed game simply by the style of how it frightens you and especially moreso by the fact it was made by an Indie developer.

As for Magika... that game is is horribly boring. The gameplay doesn't click, the story sucks, and its horribly made.

Yeah, because the story is the focus of the game >.>

Also, your first and third "points" are again just bland and not backed up...

The game itself has done no harm to gaming, Activision has, but not COD. If the game is so bad, than why are MW2 and Black Ops the two biggest media sales in recorded history?

Oh, funny, I was looking for a quote where "sales = quality", and you gave me one. Shall I just use your logic and apply it to Conduit?
That, and it's because it's brainless and that is the general status of half the teenagers around now for their downtime.

Also, yes it has. As you said - it is in the lead, is there any dispute? No, not really, and as such it is a "prime example" of what a game should be.
The game itself is bad -- that's the point I'm making.

Your judgement is flawed and biased.

How so? Okay, let's look at how I may be biased:
1) Like other games.
2) Like other platforms.
3) Generally dislike people who play CoD.

First, No.1 is N/A to me because I look at the game from as much a flat (as in not influenced by other games) as possible, and things like the example against Conduit is a fair debate considering how much money Raven may have had in relation to Amnesia, or the fact that it appears few horror games are as good - I've played FEAR and it is the "Around the corner" game.
Secondly, other platforms? Not being blunt about things but PC is objectively better than consoles when it comes to running games. Cost effective? Consoles and PC's are. A great computer more pricey? Definitely. Play it on console and I generally don't mind, it's when they blurt out that it's better I question them.

And furthermore, quite often it's the larger community you can relate to on console - with Computer you have RTS players, FPS players, RPG players and etc, console can be the same and often it is, but there is one thing that stretches further in console (namely Xbox) than anything else - CoD.

There, a large FPS playerbase on Xbox.

The third reason is dull if anything, Brainless fun is alright but I despise how badly made the game appears to be (I would say "how badly the game is" but for the sake of non-certainty...) and how much praise it receieves in return.

No one, other than Activision has bullied the gaming community, they have to make money off it. I personally don't see Activision bulling gamers, but more the developers.

Uh huh. So what are you trying to say, because right now you are very contradictory and it appears your arguments are losing ground:

I personally don't see Activision bulling gamers, but more the developers

No one, other than Activision has bullied the gaming community

Mmhmm...

mainly say you're hating because every one of your arguments is your own opinion, you have nothing to back you. At least I have reasons. All I can say is come back when you're ready to grow up a little and have a complete fact supported discussion.

So... much... hypocricy...

How about we bring in a second eye -- no, not ChillzMaster, his side is clearly where it is and I'd rather someone who looks at both sides and actually makes a decision based on the arguments - not their opinion / flat truth.

For funs:

PC gaming is terrible anyways.

That's not only "untrue", but it's a flat out lie.

It may not have sold as many copies as the bigger franchises, but it was a good game.

Because that's a fact.

As for Sledgehammer, its president was the supervising producer for Deadspace, which was extremely popular and well made.

Yeah... because that's a fact.

As for Magika... that game is is horribly boring. The gameplay doesn't click, the story sucks, and its horribly made.

Because that's a fact... Right...

The game itself has done no harm to gaming, Activision has, but not COD.

Because that's also a fact.

Are you telling me not ONE game developer has looked at MW2 and thought how successful it was, trying to replicate it's "good properties"?

Uhm... Homefront?

So, when you say "come back with a fact supported discussion", I feel at least some people can relate to what I am saying. Looking at what you said I truthfully don't, especially with the additional hypocricy I've seen.

Double posting because I am kind of afraid of losing all this by an accidental misclick.

My apologies :<

- H

Halo 2 was the game that brought console online play to the level it is today

The franchise as a whole has done that. :)

Let's see, graphics is one of the worst arguments one can have as to why a game is good. look no further than minecraft for that explanation. But to let you have your fun, I'll rebut.

I enjoy your long long list, and for some reference:
Call of Duty 1.
Knights of the Old Republic.

Call of Duty 2.God of War.

Call of Duty 3.Gears of War. (The graphics were so good that I had to research it a little more to make sure this was made the same time as CoD3... Hell to the yeah)

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.Crysis 1.

Call of Duty: World At War.Fallout 3.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. (lol at top rated comment - "Here's to Infinity Ward lowering teen pregnancy rates since 2004", props to iloveketchup20)
Uncharted 2.

Call of Duty: Black Ops.God of War 3.Mass Effect 2 (<3)
Super Mario Galaxy

Although in the defense of CoD in terms of Super Mario Galaxy...
It's cartoony, and that doesn't take as much effort to make it look fantastic if you ask me - how long will the graphics of Age of Empires Online last?

the one that has a 69 on metacritic, and a 64 for its sequel? bah.

For the record, I don't stand near reviewers opinions, they rely too much on an audience to give an honest opinion and quite frankly I prefer Totalbiscuit any day. :D

I do believe the facts above destroy that argument.

It's debateable but beyond my point - I have no opinion on Raven or Sledgehammer as of yet, but will it make me think better of CoD? No, I feel CoD is bigger than the companies and that they should be aware that opinions on CoD will then reflect on them for certain people -- me included.

lolwut? no, they're making the campaign with Sledgehammer. All of the good parts of Infinity Ward ran off to form Respawn Entertainment under EA, Activision's biggest enemy.

Good parts? Again debateable but fairly well-known from what I hear. That, and yeah, Infinity is pretty much fractured.

However, when you're a fan of a franchise that NEVER CHANGES IN FOUR YEARS, i guess innovation kinda is low on your radar.

I didn't look at it like that.
How did I look at it exactly O.o

One sec...

Yeah, because the story is the focus of the game >.>
Also, your first and third "points" are again just bland and not backed up...

Ah. That. Story is more or less the foundation they could build all the funny scenarios on - the 300 reference, and "Vlad".

luckily we were saved by Crysis 2 before a quality standstill occurred.

Whilst I do disagree with Battlefields marketing as of late I have no doubt they will create better and better quality games.

I bet you that'll snap me in the *** if they become No #1 developers. :P

But yet. Homefront effect indeed.
It's pretty much the same debate lol :P

he does have something to back him, ME. And your reasons? dismantled by ME. my facts stand strong and yours stand crippled in the dust.
LONG LIVE BATTLEFIELD 3
-Chillz

*Applaud*

:P Thanks buddy. Also I like the use of the word "dismantled" in your sentence, you make it sound like you mechanically destroyed his argument. :P

But never call it gg ("Good game", in this case that the debate is concluded) until it's proposed by the other side. If they think they "lost" (which really it shouldn't be viewed as such) then they throw out the gg and you hopefully give one in return, it looks cocky and a little... Sly if you try and throw it out right now.

Weird analogy -- I'm used to Starcraft II :P

Ahh well. Glad to be back <3

- H

OK, I'm going to make a few points here.
One, I'm talking about Conduit, not The Conduit, which was a Wii exclusive.
Two,you said:

That's not only "untrue", but it's a flat out lie.

First of all, opinions can't be lies and secondly when I say "PC gaming is horrible" I mean when it comes to most cross console games, developers seem to forget about PC gamers, which is a shame, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. I personally love Minecraft and any Valve game, and I think they should stay primarily on PC.
Three, you said:

However, when you're a fan of a franchise that NEVER CHANGES IN FOUR YEARS, i guess innovation kinda is low on your radar.

Lets see... changes from COD 4 to WaW: addition of well balanced vehicles, better balancing of weapons.

Ok now WaW to MW2: Customizable killstreaks, Pro Perks, semi controllable killstreaks, emblems, gun camo.

Now MW2 to Black Ops: Better balanced killstreaks and weapons, interactive maps, customizable Player Cards, better stat tracking, COD points and Wager Matches, reimagined leveling system, underbarrel flamethrower. SO yeah... you lost on that one.

Four, Homefront had a bit of a short campaign and a little to easy, but other than that it was a great game(IMO), and there are a lot of people still playing it, so it obviously did something right.

Can we agree to at least be mature about it? I'm sick of us (both of  you and myself) just tossing around insults instead of talking it out in a calm manner. Can we handle that guys?

Honestly, I find the argument of "CoD ruins gaming" somewhat of a fallacy. Yes, it happens to be one of the most popular FPS series, but the practive of reusing old concepts has been a staple of the industry for a long time now. Heck, it's one of the main criticisms people have of Nintendo.

If CoD wouldn't exist, I believe it would just be a different game that would have taken it's place. Most likely Halo, which has an obvious influence, as Chillz has already mentioned.

A.) Without COD, multiplayer gaming wouldn't be at nearly the level its at today.

Now this I think is incorrect. Multiplayer gaming was fine and healthy even before MW2 or any other CoD game.

What about Wii Sports? Mario Kart? Diablo? Blizzards Battle.net in general? LAN? The loads of old local Multiplayer titles?

B.) COD puts an emphasis on both environmental and object detail, ie, guns, maps, vehicles, etc. Other(Normally smaller) games strive to match.

So you're saying CoD puts an emphasis on environment and object graphics?

Honestly, I don't think that's a positive, since it just fuels that ridiculous graphics arguments we have today.

C.)The fact that multiple developers will be working on MW3 has given other developers the idea of working on joint projects. And lets face it, if two smaller developers work on a game, it will be a lot better than if one small developer was.

This doesn't necessarily guarantee a success, especially since a lone developer obviously has a better communication in-house.

Also, Duke Nukem Forever.

I don't really care if you get what I'm saying, all I ask is that if you want to hate on COD, go do it in a Battlefield thread.

To me it sounds like more of a critique on the industry and its practices as a whole and not -just- of CoD. Then again, what do I know? xP

Anyways, back on topic. I really don't think that there could have been a better way for multiplayer gaming to get popular. COD makes it easy for "noobs" to pick up a controller and relax, while still keeping a challenge for the true gamers.

As I've said, plenty of games delivered just that, even before CoD. And Multiplayer has been popular way before that. If anything, WoW would make a much stronger argument for "popularising" Multiplayer.

I don't think(and this is my opinion) that graphics would be as evolved as they are today if it weren't for the first four COD games.

Not quite. Technology for games evolves on a constant basis and would have reached this point even without CoD. I mean we eventually reached the point of 3D games even without it right?

As for Magika... that game is is horribly boring. The gameplay doesn't click, the story sucks, and its horribly made.

This needs elaboration if you don't want to come off as passing opinion as fact.

Also, actually listing the "story" as a downside, when it was clearly intended to never be taken seriously, is kind of silly.

the two biggest media sales in recorded history?

Answer me this then: Ever heard of Super Mario Bros? That game sold 40 million units by ITSELF. Not to mention Wii Sports(i.e the best selling video game ever, at this point in time), which sold well over 70 million by now.

I guess no one will remember the one title that popularized Xbox LIVE, the first console online platform. Halo 2 was the biggest game of its era, easily sitting next to Half-Life 2 as the greatest games of the generation. no to mention Halo:Combat Evolved, the game that defined Console Shooters - regen health, two-weapon slot, nearly everything that's in an FPS of today was due to Halo: Combat evolved. The only exception is Half-Life 2, but then again Valve games follow their own rules of physics and gravity. To Recap - Halo 2 was the game that brought console online play to the level it is today

And going back even further, we have Ultima Online and Wow, two games which popularised playing over the Internet. Battle.net also needs to be mentioned.

All of the GOTY contenders of 2010. Mass Effect 2, Red Dead: Redemption, God of War 3, even wii exclusive Super Mario Galaxy 2

Final Fantasy 13. As much as I hate that **** game, it certainly did have amazing graphics.

Well at least you understand Activision's evil, I'll give you that.

Now this is where I disagree, because all -I- see on the Internet is the story of the "poor artist" getting trampled on the "eeeeeevil corporations". I've heard the story a little differently,(and I find the points raised in that article are very convincing) but this isn't really the focus of this discussion so I'll leave it at that.

If anything is "evil", it would be EA moreso than Activision.

Anyway, we're talking about QUALITY, not QUANTITY.

And who defines quality? The consumer does. Buying a game essentially means that a games "value" is big enough for you to spend money on it. So what do high sales numbers mean? It means a lot of people value the game high enough to pay money, since noone would intentionally pay money for something of low quality.

Now, don't twist my words to mean that low sales mean that a game is complete crap, but it does mean high sales indicate a high quality product.

Let's look at the Wii spectrum, they're biggest selling game was Wii Sports, as simple and bad as a game can get.

Are you joking? How can you complain that games have no originality and then turn around to say Wii Sports is "as simple and bad as a game can get"? Are honestly saying 70 million (!) people bought Wii Sports, even though it was "bad"? That doesn't even begin to make sense. There's no denying the game has had some massive influence on this industry.

The effect of games as a whole? a standstill. If developers start to see that CoD makes this much money with this kind of repetition, they're going to just remake CoD, call it something different, and hope someone buys it. That's the Homefront effect, and luckily we were saved by Crysis 2 before a quality standstill occurred.

This is not even close to a new phenomenon and has happened even back when consoles where 8-bit and 16-bit. Remember when everyone tried to make a platformer? Same thing.

People naturally tend to go the route less travelled. And since the FPS crowd has been PROVEN to be safe to market to, obviously a lot of modern games will be FPS.

Oh, funny, I was looking for a quote where "sales = quality", and you gave me one. Shall I just use your logic and apply it to Conduit?

No need because I already did exactly that. Low sales are not indicative of "bad" games, while high sales DO indicate quality games.

Similar to the old argument of "Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence".

How so? Okay, let's look at how I may be biased:
1) Like other games.
2) Like other platforms.
3) Generally dislike people who play CoD.

What about 4) You dislike the game because of a certain design choice ?

Not every game needs to be designed around a "deep, skillful experience" between players. A game can be fun even without those. And looking by the massive influence CoD has gathered, this seems to be the case even for the supposed "unbalanced" iterations.

How about we bring in a second eye -- no, not ChillzMaster, his side is clearly where it is and I'd rather someone who looks at both sides and actually makes a decision based on the arguments - not their opinion / flat truth.

I find neither argument is exactly perfect.

Because that's a fact.

Same can be said for CoD being "bad" ;D

Because that's also a fact.

The one that's doing the harm is neither. I'd say it's the industry itself with it's entire sales premise being around hyping all upcoming new games to get decent sales in the first few weeks.

The problem spreads much farther than CoD.

The franchise as a whole has done that. :)

I once again refer you guys to stuff like Battle.net and other old LAN games. If anything, those were the ones that set the groundwork and not Halo (though it undeniably has it's influence too).

For the record, I don't stand near reviewers opinions, they rely too much on an audience to give an honest opinion and quite frankly I prefer Totalbiscuit any day. :D

Not to mention they are often times supported financially by the big industry companies. There have been some pretty terrible stories about just this subject, but that will just end up being off-topic.

No, I feel CoD is bigger than the companies and that they should be aware that opinions on CoD will then reflect on them for certain people -- me included.

Not to sound mean, but doesn't that sound like a bias? o-0

Lets see... changes from COD 4 to WaW: addition of well balanced vehicles, better balancing of weapons.

Ok now WaW to MW2: Customizable killstreaks, Pro Perks, semi controllable killstreaks, emblems, gun camo.

Now MW2 to Black Ops: Better balanced killstreaks and weapons, interactive maps, customizable Player Cards, better stat tracking, COD points and Wager Matches, reimagined leveling system, underbarrel flamethrower. SO yeah... you lost on that one.

While some of those are indeed valid, I wouldn't say balancing is "adding changes" to the game, as that's what a good game should have regardless. But the obvious question is, do those things actually work with the core mechanics of CoD or are there more like things that are adding in an attempt to have "original changes"?

Now MW2 to Black Ops: Better balanced killstreaks and weapons, interactive maps, customizable Player Cards, better stat tracking, COD points and Wager Matches, reimagined leveling system, underbarrel flamethrower. SO yeah... you lost on that one.

Not to mention the lack of FPS, the lack of mod tools which... weren't they promised for Black Ops? Oh, and the other problems like hit detection on snipers. It is not the game it was made out to be - none of them are. Customizable player cards were also in MW2, only that you couldn't customize it yourself and had to choose between a selection... if that makes sense -- I do see where you're coming from with that though.

Reimagined levelling system? From where?

A new attatchment, partially different killstreaks and new maps does not equate to a new game if you ask me, new maps and a new attatchment equates to a DLC for some games.

Four, Homefront had a bit of a short campaign and a little to easy, but other than that it was a great game(IMO), and there are a lot of people still playing it, so it obviously did something right.

You again use the "Popularity" card. Just because a game has a lot of players / buyers / sales does not mean it is good quality -- fact. It can correlate but it is not a truth and I am certain it does not apply to CoD.

Can we agree to at least be mature about it? I'm sick of us (both of  you and myself) just tossing around insults instead of talking it out in a calm manner. Can we handle that guys?

I've rarely thrown insults. Anything that comes across as offensive probably was intended as offensive because of the idiocy I see in some of the things you said -- incidentally one of them wasn't explained in the best way, sorry about that.

It's a common argument that people = quality, and it's something I've been over too many times... I even said that previously in this thread, I want a proper debate on actual points CoD has... it has some, surely, but I find that the technical difficulties and the lack of sufficient change makes it much less worth than what it's made out to be.

Honestly, I find the argument of "CoD ruins gaming" somewhat of a fallacy. Yes, it happens to be one of the most popular FPS series, but the practive of reusing old concepts has been a staple of the industry for a long time now. Heck, it's one of the main criticisms people have of Nintendo.

I don't know any game before MW2 that was so rediculous in its Map Packs deals, it's balancing (was there any?), and lack of dedicated servers. It was then I realized a bunch rubbish get thrown round and etc.

If CoD wouldn't exist, I believe it would just be a different game that would have taken it's place. Most likely Halo, which has an obvious influence, as Chillz has already mentioned.

In such a bad fashion? I doubt so. If anything it could've been good - Halo would have dominated the market on Xbox and thus other platforms would have been considered -- of course this is hypothetical and thus we won't ever actually know but nonetheless... it sounds reasonable.

Now this I think is incorrect. Multiplayer gaming was fine and healthy even before MW2 or any other CoD game.

That reminds me, the Activision-Blizzard business is blamed for half the micro-transactions going on in WoW now. I haven't gone deep enough to actually know what is going on, but I disagree nonetheless.

So you're saying CoD puts an emphasis on environment and object graphics?
Honestly, I don't think that's a positive, since it just fuels that ridiculous graphics arguments we have today.

Wasn't that what he was commenting against a few pages ago? :P

As I've said, plenty of games delivered just that, even before CoD. And Multiplayer has been popular way before that. If anything, WoW would make a much stronger argument for "popularising" Multiplayer.

Bare in mind it was called very difficult in Vanilla and Burning Crusade - people were very angry with the path that anyone could easily win at the game in Wrath of the Lich King, and it still remains in Cataclysm to a degree.

Answer me this then: Ever heard of Super Mario Bros? That game sold 40 million units by ITSELF. Not to mention Wii Sports(i.e the best selling video game ever, at this point in time), which sold well over 70 million by now.

48-49 Million for Super Mario Bros but what I wanna ask is - how come these aren't regarded as the highest media sales of all time? :<

Or was it the time period CoD had?

Now this is where I disagree, because all -I- see on the Internet is the story of the "poor artist" getting trampled on the "eeeeeevil corporations". I've heard the story a little differently,(and I find the points raised in that article are very convincing) but this isn't really the focus of this discussion so I'll leave it at that.
If anything is "evil", it would be EA moreso than Activision.

By "enemy", he probably meant something to do with the business races?
That, and I never believed in the publishers > creators etc -- I blame any CoD developer for the game because they are the ones stupid enough to put them into it. I distrust Raven and Sludgehammer because yeah man - they're developing CoD, a pretty bad franchise at the moment and quite frankly if this one is bad their products ain't on my list.

Now, don't twist my words to mean that low sales mean that a game is complete crap, but it does mean high sales indicate a high quality product.

An indication surely, but as I have said - I don't think that is the case here.

No need because I already did exactly that. Low sales are not indicative of "bad" games, while high sales DO indicate quality games.

It was rhetorical.... It was to make the point that using his logic his own argument is wrong... :D

What about 4) You dislike the game because of a certain design choice ?
Not every game needs to be designed around a "deep, skillful experience" between players. A game can be fun even without those. And looking by the massive influence CoD has gathered, this seems to be the case even for the supposed "unbalanced" iterations.

Biased for that? I look at games for what they can be used for. CoD can be used as a fast-paced and brainless game, is that a bad thing? No, not really. It's just that I think it has so much more praise than it deserves, so much attention and such little effort actually put into it.

I find neither argument is exactly perfect.

They need not be... O.o Right?

Same can be said for CoD being "bad" ;D

Yes but I was actually backing it up, it appeared that it was unbacked claims just to quickly dismiss anything I said - which shouldn't be the case. I've given fair reasons and explanations as far as I know, and really now -- where has it been "disproven"?

The problem spreads much farther than CoD.

Which games... exactly?

I once again refer you guys to stuff like Battle.net and other old LAN games. If anything, those were the ones that set the groundwork and not Halo (though it undeniably has it's influence too).

B.net houses Starcraft, World of Warcraft -- possibly Warcraft and Diablo, correct?

Only Warcraft and SC1 has its influence in terms of LAN. :D

Not to mention they are often times supported financially by the big industry companies. There have been some pretty terrible stories about just this subject, but that will just end up being off-topic.

Bottomline- reviewers opinions = not trustworthy, then, correct? :D

Not to sound mean, but doesn't that sound like a bias? o-0

Yeah, but that's after I've looked at it and taken a side -- if new information comes back up I jump out of the box and reanalyse the information.

Thing is as I have said.... yet again :P ... I've been over this so many times, I've fairly certain CoD is not a game worthy of its praise.

But the obvious question is, do those things actually work with the core mechanics of CoD or are there more like things that are adding in an attempt to have "original changes"?

I don't think the Killstreaks works very well, it's a neat idea indeed but ultimately a fast-paced shooter should stay mostly to shooting, whilst small bonuses like UAV (it's not small but you know), a weapon and etc would be kind of awesome if you ask me.

- H

I think its stupid that you cant have 2 xbox live players on the same screen playing others on mw2

Yeah so do I. So when u play split screen ur not the only 2 people there

I don't think the Killstreaks works very well, it's a neat idea indeed but ultimately a fast-paced shooter should stay mostly to shooting, whilst small bonuses like UAV (it's not small but you know), a weapon and etc would be kind of awesome if you ask me.

This is my main problem with COD, the killstreaks are a bit to powerful in MW2, and are taken down to easily in Black Ops. I think they should make it so that two Chopper Gunners can have an air to air fight, same with Gunships and attack helicopter, that would balance it out well.