ForumsGames[Main Thread] CoD? Put it here!

4150 434062
Cenere
offline
Cenere
13,744 posts
3,230

Apparently the effort of cleaning up the forums has been biased, so the CoD group get their own thread for discussing as well.
Enjoy.

  • 4,150 Replies
Gstroy
offline
Gstroy
484 posts
50

I was using a Kiparis with Rapid fire
Interesting, not many people use the Kaparis. My SMG of choice is personally the MPL, closely followed by the Scorpion.
Gstroy
offline
Gstroy
484 posts
50

Annihilation is out! Thoughts from those of you on Xbox?

Thurias
offline
Thurias
8 posts
10

I think COD is a really fun cool game to play, i like it more than the other first person shooters because for one its more realistic as in, you can shoot a guy with a couple shots and he will die, but if you play halo or some other syfi FPS it takes a while for you to kill them. Another reason why i think its more superior is because the game play, wepons are better in my opinion that the other FPS.

KentyBK
offline
KentyBK
570 posts
265

It doesn't have to be a good game, how long does it take before you're bored insane does not equate to how good a game is - unless that is its focus (replayability factor).


You keep intrepreting something that isn't there :S

If a game doesn't entertain you, then yes it is a bad game. If game A entertained you for a longer time than game B, than yes game A is the better one because it fulfilled its job as a game much better (this job being to entertain the player).

Is ME2 a bad game because I don't like playing it in my free time? Hell noaw. Is CoD a bad game? Yes, if you ask me, but how many hours have been dedicated to MW2 alone?


So if you don't enjoy playing it in your free time, then what makes it a good game? Clearly it fails at entertaining you if you don't want to willingly invest your free time into it.

The CoD think is very much opinion, since I'm fairly sure the vast majority of CoD players is in fact entertained by its online modes.

I'm arguing that the product itself may not be the idea of actually buying it but instead playing with friends. If you had Co-Op F.3.A.R or Co-Op CoD, you like F.E.A.R 3 more but your friends play CoD, is it accurate to say that the sale to that person buying CoD likes it more?


Your friends playing a game adds value to the product. If someone buys both games, then they value them both to spend money. If someone buys either game over the other, it obviously means said game has more value to this customer, regardless of what actually influenced the perceived value.

Okay, perhaps I should not trust 10s of millions of people to give their opinion on what is worth their money? :P Situations are different for everyone, sure, I have over ã300 spare for when I need it, but even so I only plan on getting Age of Empires Online (which is free), possibly Frozen Synapse and Mass Effect 3 this year.

Oh, and I'm fairly certain I'm renewing my subscription for World of Warcraft.


Once again, Value =/= Something is better than the other. Nobody is telling you to spend your money because of high sales numbers.

But the sales of CoD.....compared to say *insert FPS franchise here* are just an indicator of what value the market perceives the game at. It doesn't mean that *generic CoD game* is BETTER than *generic other FPS*, it just means there's a higher demand for it.

And one last time, just to drive the point home: Sales are NOT an indicator of quality in a generic industry sense (x game sells better, which means the gameplay MUST be superior), but they do indicate consumer demand and perceived value of your market (which makes a best-selling game a "good" game from a business sense).

Nothing.else.

I think the newest Medal of Honor is a fair assessment. I'm fairly sure a lot of people bought that item (preordered it*) so that they could get their hands on Battlefield 3's Beta.


You really think lots of people would pay full price just for a beta, just so they can pay full price AGAIN for when it releases? :S

Medal Of Honor really hasn't done so hot to suggest this is true (it hasn't sold much differently from its other franchise counterparts; it's not even the best selling MOH game).

Yes, but that is not mentioned in statistics, all you hear are the sales numbers, not how much the game has grossed OR how much was spent developing it.

Thus I find it's fairly inaccurate. :P


Because this is irrelevant if you use sales to measure market value and demand. Also, the industry media made a BIG deal out of how much Black Ops grossed if you didn't notice.

It's rediculously easy to find entertainment, you don't need games etc to prove that. Heck - you don't even need a large amount of technology to do that, again, it's quality. Chances are a game like CoD is entertaining for the vast majority of people -- they may like something better, but that "something better" doesn't have their friends playing it. They find value in the lesser (although sufficient) quality of entertainment CoD can offer.


If they play it compared to something else, what they're playing has more value to them.

People only play something that entertains them. Something of greater value has more more quality entertainment to the customer (you can't exactly have something with high value somehow be LESS entertaining; that makes no sense :S).

The bad traits of CoD are the flawed ones - balance and technical issues, other than that, I find it's a minimally good game but nonetheless entertaining. Other games deserve such recognition, or rather, games should take a shared recognition.


And yet, the market does not value them. Which is why CoD needs to be looked at to find what gives it such value.

Oh and btw, a not perfect balance doesn't necessarily mean "not fun". It's what Mario Kart and Smash Bros are pretty much made of nowadays.

Yes, it indeed is, but why is it Magicka sold much less than CoD but I still find it entertaining?


Because you value Magicka more than CoD. But the market values CoD more than Magicka.

Though CoD certainly has some influencing things going for it. Magicka not having any retail presence AND being Steam exclusive don't exactly help its case.

But at the same time, a game does not need a marketing budget or retail presence in order to sell. Just look at Minecraft, which sold on word of mouth alone.

Simply put the most popular mods on SCII are the ones shown on the front page, the least played ones I think at the back page.


Wasn't this my point? >_>

I said:
There's no denying that the most played ones are the ones that are the most popular ;P


So not only will new mods be difficult to start up but my god will it be difficult getting others to play - which is more often or not the case in SCII mods. Footmen, Smashcraft, EURO Wars, Zealot Frenzy, Zone Control, Star Battle, etc -- all require more than one player to play properly (Footmen and Star Battle can have up to 12...)


All the "popular" mods had to become popular in the first place too. Them appearing on the front page undoubtly means they are the most appealing mods.
Xcalibur45
offline
Xcalibur45
1,850 posts
2,510

Interesting, not many people use the Kaparis. My SMG of choice is personally the MPL, closely followed by the Scorpion.


Its awesome if your up close, which those guys had to be. So I did a lot of hip firing.
Gstroy
offline
Gstroy
484 posts
50

Its awesome if your up close, which those guys had to be. So I did a lot of hip firing.
Yeah, I like to take it for a spin on Nuketown from time to time, but I'm more of a mid to long distance player.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,051 posts
330

If a game doesn't entertain you, then yes it is a bad game. If game A entertained you for a longer time than game B, than yes game A is the better one because it fulfilled its job as a game much better (this job being to entertain the player).

I don't use that logic, pure entertainment or even quality of entertainment to me does not dictate how good a game is. It all needs a balance - how complex? Why is it good? How does it entertain you?

So if you don't enjoy playing it in your free time, then what makes it a good game? Clearly it fails at entertaining you if you don't want to willingly invest your free time into it.

I already played it once, and being a single player RPG it isn't the best for replayability. I have completed it once but I do play it on occasion -- only that I need not that all else to do. It's high quality entertainment, especially the first time, but Starcraft II is even better quality entertainment.

The CoD think is very much opinion, since I'm fairly sure the vast majority of CoD players is in fact entertained by its online modes.

It's a triple A title! Technical problems and unbalanced gameplay (which quite often can't be disputed) should NOT be present in a game of such high funding, high marketing and such a high level of players. Also, even if I pretty much completely abandon the idea that CoD is relatively bad (which I'm not, but nonetheless), I still think it's given way more praise than it should.

Your friends playing a game adds value to the product. If someone buys both games, then they value them both to spend money. If someone buys either game over the other, it obviously means said game has more value to this customer, regardless of what actually influenced the perceived value.

Yes but it is not reliant on the game, only the "Play Online" functionality which sooooo many games have it's nearly an expectancy from games.
Depending on the genre / style etc.

Nothing.else.

Deal. :P

Perceived value of a game though does not necessarily hold true either - for reasons said and possibly others. Nothing else, surely, but meh... I find it's a fair judgement to not allow sales / ratings deter my willingness to buy something like Mass Effect 3.

It'll be highly rated, I'm sure -- but nonetheless that's hypothetical.

You really think lots of people would pay full price just for a beta, just so they can pay full price AGAIN for when it releases? :S

From what my friends say...
Yeah. :P

Medal Of Honor really hasn't done so hot to suggest this is true (it hasn't sold much differently from its other franchise counterparts; it's not even the best selling MOH game).

It holds true for some people at least. My point is not necessarily valid, though.

Also, the industry media made a BIG deal out of how much Black Ops grossed if you didn't notice.

lol
One of my points is that CoD gets too much attention -- I've little idea of games that had industry media flocking over their money grossed.

All I ask is a few examples.
As of LATE, please.

Oh and btw, a not perfect balance doesn't necessarily mean "not fun". It's what Mario Kart and Smash Bros are pretty much made of nowadays.

I doubt any game is perfectly balanced, but I find CoD is pretty out of whack on this aspect.

Because you value Magicka more than CoD. But the market values CoD more than Magicka.

Yes, but how much light has been shun on Magicka compared to CoD?
2 Series of videos made by TB, including a "WTF Is", a pre-release view and maybe something else.
A video of it by Huskystarcraft.
Yogscast doing videos with TB on it.
That's mostly it, from what I know -- none of them are industry media, which sheds light on soooo much. Whilst you may not look at it for an actual opinion or to determine if it's worth the money, I think a lot of games come to light from it.

Magicka not having any retail presence AND being Steam exclusive don't exactly help its case.

But does that determine the quality of the game, by your logic? Yours was "quality of entertainment and value of it", right? If so then those aren't really applicable. Surely it will for a lot of people but hey, I don't even think that's the point in the case of Magicka -- Steam is REALLY accessible and useful.

All the "popular" mods had to become popular in the first place too. Them appearing on the front page undoubtly means they are the most appealing mods.

It's a simple problem - it does NOT shed light on the better mods newly created which have not been voted upon. It's flawed in that way, but there is no doubt that the ones that are on top page are certainly awesome.

- H
riveroflava02
offline
riveroflava02
1 posts
260

@gstroy: some good ideas but the whole taser claymore thing is ridiculous. why slow somebody down when you could just kill them with a real claymore?

Gstroy
offline
Gstroy
484 posts
50

some good ideas but the whole taser claymore thing is ridiculous. why slow somebody down when you could just kill them with a real claymore?
[quote] That's why you get two, it allows you to cover multiple places, as opposed to the Claymore's one.
KentyBK
offline
KentyBK
570 posts
265

pure entertainment or even quality of entertainment to me does not dictate how good a game is.


Yes it is. Entertainment is what games are -made- for. A game doing this job badly is a bad game, plain and simple. If you disagree, then why do you play games?

It all needs a balance - how complex? Why is it good? How does it entertain you?


All those factors just determine how entertaining a game is to you personally. But there's no doubt the best games are those that can entertain the most amount of people, just like it is with music, movies and books.

Gaming is very much a hobby. The point of a hobby is doing something you like, and that entertains you. See where I'm going? ;D

I already played it once, and being a single player RPG it isn't the best for replayability.


o-0

Singleplayer RPGs have MASSIVE potential for replayability, given that they are done correctly. Look at stuff like Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Ultima and other RPG franchise of ye olde times. All singleplayer, yet all of them allow for lots of choices to be made by the player which makes replaying these games a lot of fun.

The problem arises when you make your RPG focus too much on the main plot itself. Nowadays this might seem like a paradox but it's really not. Did anyone care what Oblivions plot was? Does anyone even REMEMBER?

A game, regardless of genre, should never focus primarily on something a writer has created. Instead focus on keeping the player entertained and give him lots of meaningful choices to try out.

(That's also part of my argument why I think the big narratives are not required, but I digress)

but Starcraft II is even better quality entertainment.


Which indicates that Starcraft II is the better game of the two. Comparing both franchises side by side, you'll notice Starcraft games have a bigger audience (partially because of the big success of the first game).

It's a triple A title! Technical problems and unbalanced gameplay (which quite often can't be disputed) should NOT be present in a game of such high funding, high marketing and such a high level of players.


And Smash and Mario Kart are not? They are first-party AAA games, making them a whole different class of their own! Balancing only makes sense if it leads to your game being more fun than before.

Yes but it is not reliant on the game, only the "Play Online" functionality which sooooo many games have it's nearly an expectancy from games.
Depending on the genre / style etc.


So it's not dependant on the game, but a mode OF the game, which in turn is something that the game has? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

Not every online mode is the same. The most fun games have the most crowded online communities and servers.

Perceived value of a game though does not necessarily hold true either - for reasons said and possibly others. Nothing else, surely, but meh... I find it's a fair judgement to not allow sales / ratings deter my willingness to buy something like Mass Effect 3.

It'll be highly rated, I'm sure -- but nonetheless that's hypothetical.


Subjective rating =/= Sales data ;D

And nobody is saying to go buy it BECAUSE of sales. But if Mass Effect 3 sells, it will be because the market values it and has a certain demand for it.

All I ask is a few examples.
As of LATE, please.


As I said, this is not normally done because of a few reasons:

- Most people don't care so much about stats like these (and as a customer, you really shouldn't care about developement costs, as long as the game is good and entertaining)

- They don't even matter much compared to raw sales. I mean, what difference does it make of "how much a game grossed" or "how much it cost to make"? That still wouldn't change anything of how objective (or subjective) sales numbers are. They just indicate a market interest.

I doubt any game is perfectly balanced, but I find CoD is pretty out of whack on this aspect.


And why does that have to be bad? Magicka is not balanced either ;P

If a game is fun with it's unbalanced nature, then I see no harm in keeping it that way.

Yes, but how much light has been shun on Magicka compared to CoD?
2 Series of videos made by TB, including a "WTF Is", a pre-release view and maybe something else.
A video of it by Huskystarcraft.
Yogscast doing videos with TB on it.
That's mostly it, from what I know -- none of them are industry media, which sheds light on soooo much. Whilst you may not look at it for an actual opinion or to determine if it's worth the money, I think a lot of games come to light from it.


Keep in mind this is exactly because CoD is a AAA game series, while Magicka is not. The media only covers them because they are PAID to, be in through advertisements, previews or other such things by a publisher.

But, the other side of the coin is that games can sell despite the coverage (i.e Minecraft, which only really got reported on AFTER it exploded in popularity). Not everyone gets their info from somewhat suspect game industry sites (which are really just part of the hype machine). A good game is something that can get popular by word of mouth alone (look at Wii Sports, it got so popular that REGULAR news media reported on it, which is a different beast entirely).

Though I don't really have much respect for the game industry as a whole anyways, and stuff like thisand thisis why.

But does that determine the quality of the game, by your logic?


No, because I already said quality =/= sales (and I mean in terms of, bad gameplay/controls/whatever). In terms of business, yes it is a worse game than CoD is. It's also a worse game than Minecraft in that same regard.

Yours was "quality of entertainment and value of it", right?


It was "sales show market interest and that it's percieved value by it". If it were the be-all-end-all game, people would be making Steam accounts JUST to get to it. But alas, it has long fallen off the top of Steam charts (which happens quite frequently I might add, happened to Terraria too).

Steam is REALLY accessible and useful.


It.......really isn't. To you and me it MIGHT be, but look at it from this angle.

What about someone that is not deeply involved in PC gaming (and therefor doesn't know about Steam)? What about the Wii's expanded audience?

Keep in mind that in most parts of the world, the console market is bigger than the PC market (there ARE exceptions, my country being one of them ;P). As such, not everyone has a gaming-class PC, much less the technical knowledge to assemble one. How would you market something like Magicka, a PC exclusive, download-only game (from a service most people haven't really heard of)? It is bound to stay obscure. Look at Minecraft, which is popular even to non-PC gamers, and gets a 360 AND mobile version.

I dare say not putting Minecraft on Steam might have been the best choice.

It's a simple problem - it does NOT shed light on the better mods newly created which have not been voted upon. It's flawed in that way, but there is no doubt that the ones that are on top page are certainly awesome.


How would you know they are better? You'd obviously have to play them and if they really ARE, they'll end at the top of the list.
Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,051 posts
330

Yes it is. Entertainment is what games are -made- for. A game doing this job badly is a bad game, plain and simple. If you disagree, then why do you play games?

For entertainment, of course I play them for entertainment but if it's brainless fighting -- although I can easily find it entertaining I dislike the idea of not using my head. Why do you think RTS' are being made? What is so entertaining about commanding units etc? The prime reason if people did not develop restrictions and standards would be to have power, whereas I play it because I feel it requires the most skill in most cases.

That, and the sense of accomplishment if I win a Multiplayer Game.

Gaming is very much a hobby. The point of a hobby is doing something you like, and that entertains you. See where I'm going? ;D

Can't argue with that :P
But what about it as an art form, and what about professional gaming? Those are very entertaining to watch, dare I say, and as an art form it can make wonders -- would you say the mining on Minecraft or the first 2 minutes of Starcraft II are entertaining? Why not skip it?!
Options... That's why

The problem arises when you make your RPG focus too much on the main plot itself. Nowadays this might seem like a paradox but it's really not. Did anyone care what Oblivions plot was? Does anyone even REMEMBER?

In ME2's case. Darn straight. Whilst I love how they presented the story and the options it opened up (Can you have an epic speech for nothing?), I do feel that the story did hit the replayability.

Which indicates that Starcraft II is the better game of the two. Comparing both franchises side by side, you'll notice Starcraft games have a bigger audience (partially because of the big success of the first game).

For me Starcraft II is outstanding for a few things:
1) Using my head (making it difficult), I love playing against people working 100%, it's like stretching your legs, once you stop it feels great if you did it right (if you do it wrong you lose... :P ).
2) Watching eSports (Amazing downtime), I love looking at how professional players battle it out and win a lot of money. I like to figure out situations in games I've been in where I could've used the same compositions / techniques etc.
3) Mods... When do they have a 3v3v3v3 arena in a game? When do they have a 3v3 asian-style fighting game?
Oh, sorry that's Footmen and Smashcraft. :P

Also I said "asian-style" because of the music, the voice actress and the general explosions going on

Balancing only makes sense if it leads to your game being more fun than before.

... Teehee.
I would go on MW2 for an hour and wait for someone to rage but I had this computer rebooted -- nonetheless I feel it's a valid point.

People do consistently ramble on about "balance issues" (which honestly is quite often their incapability to think of other methods to counter it), and sometimes they're right if you ask me. There are some FLAT OUT weapons which just go above another, maybe the other is underpowered? I seriously doubt it, considering how quickly you can die in MW2.

So it's not dependant on the game, but a mode OF the game, which in turn is something that the game has? Sounds like a contradiction to me.

It's like modding -- it relies on other people. The usefulness of the Online Mode depends on how good the community is.
Is the community of Battlefield as good as it could (I say "should", but you know. :P ) be?
No. It's a teamwork game and the main things related to that is just using your gear to get points, and spawning on your teammates, no real communication or coordination is being made.

And why does that have to be bad? Magicka is not balanced either ;P
If a game is fun with it's unbalanced nature, then I see no harm in keeping it that way.

It is harmful when someone has a major advantage over another in the game simply by choice. Usually I agree with the "You can use it -- why not?" and that works temporarily but in the end other weapons were placed there for a reason, and it is bad design if they are not used.

As for Magicka, how seriously is it supposed to be taken?
I took it pretty dang seriously, mostly because I was playing by myself, but I laugh so hard when I sacrifice my friend to survive and then bring him back, or something.

Or when I miss a Thunder Bolt and instantly kills one of my teammates - now THAT'S overpowered.

Point being, CoD is taken seriously by a vast amount of people, balance is the name of the game -- what else is CoD for? Entertainment. You know what isn't entertaining?
*Spawn* Dead.
*Spawn* *Run around corner* Grenade Launcher'd.
*Spawn* Dead.

Not a rare occurence. :P

Oh and yes I think spawns relate to balance to a game, and furthermore I think weapons are very bad too. :P

Keep in mind this is exactly because CoD is a AAA game series, while Magicka is not. The media only covers them because they are PAID to, be in through advertisements, previews or other such things by a publisher.

Yes, and it's in a way the same thing with the mods on SCII -- which I'll talk about more when you come to it.

In terms of business, yes it is a worse game than CoD is. It's also a worse game than Minecraft in that same regard.

Hehe - not my standpoint, and yeah that is definitely the standpoint of a lot of developers and certainly publishers.

How would you know they are better? You'd obviously have to play them and if they really ARE, they'll end at the top of the list.

Finding them is difficult, it'd be joining empty servers of the mod and testing it myself -- which is not the way to do it, being how bad it could be without teammates or enemies, etc.

Same with the market. CoD is one of the top and being king of the hill they have a high chance of remaining a high-profile franchise for a while longer, especially since they come out with a new game every year. Section 8: Prejudice... Heard of that?

It's a shooter being made by an indie title -- hell, the only reason I know about it is because Totalbiscuit talked about it.

Word of mouth? Yes. But in a way what you've said has been contradictory - you say sales indicate the quality of a game and yet a good game is through word of mouth? Consider the media attention CoD has received, it's a huge point used by CoD fans and be fair -- have you had difficulty convincing someone to try out a game you love but has not been heard of or anything?

Amnesia: The Dark Descent is a really good exception if you ask me, but even so it can be very difficult to convince a few friends of mine, it was only when I had my brother-in-law sit down and try out the demo (****ting himself in the process) that I could actually convince him to see that the game was pretty darn scary -- nevermind having him buy it.

I bought it for £6.50 on a Steam Sale by the way.

Keep in mind that in most parts of the world, the console market is bigger than the PC market (there ARE exceptions, my country being one of them ;P). As such, not everyone has a gaming-class PC, much less the technical knowledge to assemble one. How would you market something like Magicka, a PC exclusive, download-only game (from a service most people haven't really heard of)? It is bound to stay obscure. Look at Minecraft, which is popular even to non-PC gamers, and gets a 360 AND mobile version.

Yep. :/

I think Steam is expanding a great deal though -- it's big rocket start was when it was announced that MW2 was taking Steam as its host. That's when I met it, and that's probably when a lot of others did too.

- H
MegaIPOD
offline
MegaIPOD
422 posts
1,090

i cant wait for COD MW3

EverDead
offline
EverDead
179 posts
205

If some helpless person doesn't know when CoDMW3 is coming out for PC, PS3 and XBox360: November 11, 2011.

Wii hasn't been confirmed, though I have seen pictures of Cover art and a new Accessory for MW3 for the WiiSpeak thingy.

Wii might come out later then the original release, I am hoping before Christmas would be a logical release date for it.

I have a Wii, and I love CoDMW2 Reflex, The multiplayer is amazing.

If someone hasn't seen Video of CoDMW3 yet, go see it now.
It makes me want to pee myself it is so awesome.
Might go run and buy a PS3 just for it.

Gstroy
offline
Gstroy
484 posts
50

I noticed something...
First Strike
Escalation
Annihilation
Retaliation(rumored)
F.E.A.R.
My thought is that the fifth map pack will be called Fear and feature 5 zombie maps.

Highfire
offline
Highfire
3,051 posts
330

I will give you +1 Internetz if that is correct.

Not that I care, to be quite frank, but that's quite a good eagle eye :P

Or too much free time xD

I don't know :>

- H

Showing 151-165 of 4150