Blizzard has this one other game too.

That's right, forgot about Warcraft lololo

I dunno. Never affected me. I view it a little like facebook. Millions of people play it and have it and rave about it, and I just don't really feel like partaking at all. I don't think less of somebody for being just like everyone else.

That said I'm tired of FPS games in general. I think Portal 2 is the only "FPS" I've bought in recent years. Every time I see some new game like CoD, Black Ops, Battlefield 3, Bulletstorm, Prejudice, Operation Flashpoint, Ghost Recon, or Medal of Honor touted about as the must-have-video-games I feel like abandoning PC gaming and just sitting down with a book or something.

Thankfully there are enough Street Fighters, Total Wars, and Elder Scrolls games to kind of make up for it. Keeps me from getting a Mac Mini.

My problem is that shooters are starting to feel like sports games, that "been there, done that" feel. It's like we're getting 20 versions of Madden every year. It takes something like BioShock or Deus Ex: Human Revolution to get me excited for a FPS anymore.

The industry is running the genre ragged and in just five years it's lost a lot of its appeal IMO.

COD aint even a very good FPS shooter.

This

What's sad and a shame is that kids of this modern society and generation missed out on those classic gems. I grew up with Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem 3D etc and now in present time we have mediocrity. Funny enough, I bet the kids will not play the 1996/1997/1998 games due to the graphics. o_o

I won't play them because they're simple, generic, and just plain bad compared to even crappy modern shooters.

lmao

So true

i think i should point out that you're bringing up CoD too, OP.

Isn't that a little redundant redundant?

Most modern shooters are linear jaunts from point A to B with glowing waypoints and arrows leading you every step of the way. Items and goals light up like the Fourth of July just in case you couldn't spot them from the game's title menu. Health regenerates itself in the event your cat-like reflexes fail you and, as a result, most games are kind enough to disclose your assailant's exact direction.

Now, I'm not saying that these things are necessarily bad, but I don't know how much simpler you can get.

CoD isn't a bad game. It's not a ground breaking game, but it's still enjoyable to play. Yeah, single player falls flat on it's face, but if you're buying it, you're not buying it for single player. You buy Bioshock or Crysis something to get the single player shooter experience. The main problem with CoD is that they have fallen into the Madden train of thought: "Hey, we have a formula that tons of people are buying in to. We don't need to make improvements every year, just release a game with a couple different features and people will eat it up." Madden's sales dropped last year (Madden 11) and I have a feeling that CoD will start to drop off within the next two years if they don't make some major improvements.

People always relate new games to the current big games of that genre of the day. Backbreaker was related to Madden. Every new MMO is related to WoW. Every new first person shooter is related to CoD. It's not CoD's fault or the fault of the person making the comparison, it's just that if you compared it to another game, it wouldn't make that much sense. I mean, if anything, when I first saw Brink, I thought Team Fortress 2 with all the different classes, but then I saw some other things and I was like "Team Fortress 2 + Mirror's Edge". Then some other things popped up and I was like "Ok, they've got some weapon customization" and my mind wandered to CoD.

I play and enjoy CoD multiplayer. I frequently point out it's flaws because I want quality games to be produced. I don't care who they're from, what ideas they steal from who or whatever. If it's a quality game that interests me, then I'll pick it up. I bought the first Modern Warfare and I had a blast. I have fun playing MW2 and Black Ops on my friend's disc but I wouldn't think about buying it because it wasn't a big enough leap forward for me. If the next iteration of Call of Duty is "ground breaking" and I really go "wooooah", then yeah, I'll pick it up.

TL;DR: MAKE GOOD GAMES.

Forget CoD, bring back TimeSplitters.

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/30/crytek-discussing-possibility-of-timesplitters-4-needs-crysis-2/

I'm willing to pay the $120/yr for COD if it stays sick. Its like WOW. You pay for what you get. Prolly wont get MW3 if it doesnt have zombie or another extra cool mode in addition to its multiplayer. Unless of course everyone I know has it, then I'm a have to grab it.

I wanna run a game 8pm at night, theres mad people online tryin to run COD, 5am in the morning still alota people on playing COD, 10 am in the morning, still alota people on playing COD.

Its a good game and worth the price/year

The advent of perks and unlocks in FPS has really taken a lot of the skill out. Go and play Quake Live for even a second and see just how much skill a game with no perks and no unlocks has available to it. There are no cheap tricks or unfair advantages based simply on play time alone. Its entirely skill based, and a pro at Quake Live can beat you with a the chain gun if need be.

I cant stand Call of Duty for those reasons. If there was ever a game that made me want to throttle the nearest living being into a coma, it would be Call of Duty. Cheap tricks, bullcrap moves, hacking everywhere, bullcrap perks, and all sorts of other terrible balance. Jeez, as if sprint knifers weren't bad enough.

You have access to the same stuff everyone else has access to

Oh sure, after spending hours and hours of my life. In addition, due to the way things work out, there WILL be better weapons/perks/whatever. In addition, there will be builds that are counters to mine, like a sniper taking out shotgun users on a more open map. Now, it is within reason that players should adapt to that, but when you play a certain class heavily, and all you have are unlocks for that class, switching out on different maps that do not support your chosen play style becomes difficult, sometimes downright unbearable.

There is no dispute that Quake has a more even playing field, because you literally do not have to make a choice. Everybody spawns with the same weapon, has access to the same weapons, and to the same powerups the INSTANT they join the map, regardless of play time. A noob can pick up the BFG same as a pro. Not so in Call of Duty, where a noob is stuck with the crappy starting weapon while a long time player gets access to the M-16 with all their doodads, powerups, perks, and other cheap tricks (did they really need to add an exploding remote control car to the game?), not to mention kill streaks.

I played Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 a lot. I mean a ton. And what I came out on the other side realizing was that much of the gameplay of those games was simply finding out the way to be the cheesiest, cheapest bastard on the map. Finding the cheapest, easiest spot to camp/roam around in, get the best weapon for that specific spot, and most players wouldn't even be able to see you before they died. No skill involved. I spent most of my time reloading my weapon than actually fighting. Now, that isn't to say that skill didn't come into play many times, because it died, but I found many, many games could be won by finding out the cheesiest spot to hide, and then sit there and rake in the kills with uber one-shot weapons like the M-16 with headshots.

Or god forbid, akimbo 1887s.

But you know that a lot of advancement hasn't been made when I could go onto MW2 about a month ago and still get a game easy. I don't see how dishing out $120 a year for basically the same game with a new mask is a good idea.

I'm not saying that CoD should totally rework what they do, but I think some improvements need to be made to make me interested in actually shelling out money to play it. What CoD is doing is successful, obviously, but they have to grow and evolve into something bigger/better to make me interested in it.


That was a fun read. I'll respond when I get home in about an hour.

This is a case of "Hate the Game, not the player"

See, we tend to hate COD because of its fanbase. Heres examples:

The School Idiot:

"I just got the AK-47 with ACOG and Grenade Launcher, uber pwnage"

The addicted to Zombie:

"BOOM! HEADSHOT [censored]!"

Like I am saying, COD isn't a game of wits, its more of "The bigger gun wins". That is why I stick to Strategy games like Civilization and Theatre of War series. Also, Fallout, too.

I've seen many people go around with the MP5 and, with the right perks, they're able to beat out most people. CoD doesn't have a God Weapon. There are certainly more versatile weapons than others (M16, Commando, etc.), but there is no one weapon you can use to win all the time.

Also, you can't put a grenade launcher and an ACOG scope on the same weapon...noob.

Aside from the fact that the http://denkirson.xanga.com/735016527/black-ops/ or very similar. People use the FAMAS because it is pretty much identical to other guns but has a higher fire rate.

Bling?

That's very true, which kinda goes against your "god weapon" theory.


In MW2, Bling did that, but in Black Ops, Warlord (as it's call now) allows you to attach two attachments unless one of them is the flamethrower, masterkey or grenade launcher. Then you're only allowed that attachment. Kind of a balance thing.

...who thought I'd see the day where I'm defending CoD...

There is a god weapon because there are weapons that have a higher damage output with minimally affected range or damage in contrast to weapons in the same class.