Fallout Studios Forums

I'm sorry I I thought you were actually capable of reading. I do like to have actual discussions with people that can actually get the difference between "COD IS CRAP" (to use the own words you've accused me of saying), and "I won't be getting this game" (which is what I actually said in the first place)
And if you had been more present on the forums, you would have noticed that I'm always trying to back my opinions, and never lack respect to other members nor treat them as if they were simpletons, which is something you were doing right now.

It would seem that I assumed too much as well...

EDIT : Oh and don't you think we should keep the personal attacks part to PMs? I'm sure it's getting pretty repetitive for other members to see you getting in arguments with someone every once in a while.
Edited by CJ, 25 May 2011 - 01:10.

OK, enough is bloody well enough. Before you post further in this thread, you read what I have to say. Ignore this at your significant peril.

Is it genuinely too much to ask to go between topics on this bloody forum and not see people heckling each other, trashing their opinions, or acting like they have a fucking God-given right to be heard, and to be right?

What I'll try and do is put into words a little more something Hobbesy said the other day, rather 'you people will argue about anything, won't you?'. Tbh, whilst perhaps put across in a particularly succinct manner, he has a point. I'm not here to name names and point fingers, but I swear to God the next person I deem as being a total tosser for no good reason I will start handing out warns, verbal or otherwise. You have been warned, so heed it.

Now, I honestly fail to see what the fucking problem is in this sodding community, but something somewhere has broken recently. The concept of a forum is that publicly, at least, you have a jolly good discussion about the sort of things that honestly you're not going to have with your mates, unless you would rather talk to your mates about politics rather than the attractive girl with tits hanging out that's just entered the room (and yes I know this is a generalisation but that's kind of the point). You do not come here to have a fucking argument during which you lambast each other's opinions for not being solid enough, or simply pull off one-liner insults that don't so much dig at the discussion, rather, they dig at the person presenting an opinion.

Tensions can always fray, trust me I'm personally very well aware of that (just look at wtf happened with me & SWR, or me & Stinger, or both). However, these should not spill over onto the forums (quite ironically Stinger and I now piss around on MW2 a fair amount these days and get along quite well). Instead of assuming a one-sided dimension to ever single person on here, try and look beyond that. The people you see here aren't defined by what they say, and perhaps sometimes they deserve a measure of leniency, and not to have others jumping on every post they make with teeth bared. A good example was the absolute disaster that was the Black Ops thread a while ago, which quickly became entrenched into a fucking war of attrition with shitty comments, because nobody seems to be able to let anything go.

If you just sometimes looked past a comment without jumping down somebody's throat, we'd all get along a fuckload better. A discussion is good. An argument is not. All I would ask is that next time you need to reply to someone, do you need to be so hostile? Or can you express yourself in a manner that does not belittle them, or antagonise them?

As to this toipic, I simply will not have it become a bloody spamfest of CoD v non-Cod or any other form of stupid argument. If you want to debate it with reasoned opinions, feel free. But the heated arguments with bullshit belittling etc just will not be tolerated from now on. End of discussion.

The campaign does look quite interesting

(oh, and quality post AJ )
Edited by deltaepsilon, 25 May 2011 - 03:23.

To get this topic back on track somewhat, I'll bring up a point I was discussing with Chyros last week (and one that both of us have been over a few times before ) It relates specifically to the point that Nem raised...

Nem, on 24 May 2011, 17:04, said:

Now I am _not_ fine with what I suspect will be MW2 with new art work (models and maps).

MW3 shouldn't be the same thing again with a couple of different weapons and a new campaign. Alright, for the sake of this particular argument let's just leave the SP out of it. Apart from a strange storyline in MW2, SP in MW is usually pretty damn good, but I am really worried that what MW3 MP will be is just MW2 with new maps and variations on the existing killstreaks. Imo, that does not a new game make. Stalker makes the point

Stalker, on 24 May 2011, 19:36, said:

Why should I spend a fuckton of money, contextually speaking, on what should really be DLC for MW2? Now if they were to give us something moar, something different, without radically altering the foundation of MW then all is well and good. But because they are simply reusing the same old engine they aren't going to be able to do it.

Now I am not a game designer so I can't just come up with what an evolution in FPS gaming actually is, but if game developers can't work that out then they are in the wrong business themselves. At least BF:BC2 gave us destructible buildings on a new engine. Now I am not saying that I want that in MW3, but I do know that I am disappoint (maybe wrongly so) that we will literally only get a MP with the same perks, imbalanced weapons and a couple of new killstreaks. And if that is the case, surely there should be a case to answer that IW could have just put out a big DLC for MW2 at 40% of the cost of a new game, and likely still make a profit.

Weww, IMO one of the reasons CoD core gameplay has changed very little over the years is because that's what makes the game work. Its specific gameplay is why CoD is good. BO changed several core game mechanics and ended up being shitty because of it.

Now of course CoD has been expanded greatly over the years, MW2 being almost incomparable to CoD 1 now, but most of the founding mechanics were at least partially founded way back then, such as hip spread, ADS and reloading mechanics (even though they all worked a little differently, they were still there at the least).

Now IW have always been _relatively_ innovative in their CoD games, but they, like me, don't like really touching the game too much, lest they change it into something that it isn't. Destructable buildings, for example, wouldn't work in CoD at all.

Personally I don't NEED to have big changes from MW2 since MW2 was already extremely good. In fact I don't think it needs to be much different from a MW2 mod to be the best shooter ever, as IMO MW2 is easily the best shooter in the world as far as I'm concerned. And as for the price: I can't check the exact figure right now as I'm at OCC (for those who wonder, it's SOC's new name) but I should have over 1000 hours of MW2 gameplay. At the price of a night out, I think that was money very well spent. If MW3 is anything like MW2 I'd be happy to spend the same amount of money again - in fact, I hate the concept of DLC and I think NOTHING should ever be DLC. Besides, even at having to buy the same game over and over every two years is much cheaper than for example playing only one game on the xbox where you have to keep paying.

Chyros, on 25 May 2011, 18:56, said:

And that's exactly my issue with Call of Duty. It was an innovative series but now relies on riding on its own coattails. You could theoretically put all of the MW2 assets into the first Call of Duty engine and get at least 90% of the gameplay functions that the newer games have. I have some respect for DICE in the respect as they at least have tried to innovate in their recent games, even if a lot of the changes aren't all that good.

When buying a new Call of Duty game you are pretty much buying a mod of the previous game. It has been this way since Call of Duty 4. It takes a lot less effort to do such a thing than to create a new IP, and as such should a new Call of Duty game even be full price?

Not saying they are bad games, as since the newer ones are pretty much direct derivatives of Call of Duty 4 which is a great game. But they aren't necessarily worth the full price compared to say, a new IP for instance - which takes a lot more effort to make than merely repackaging a predecessor.

Quote

Mwah, that's perhaps a bit harsh. The hardpoint system alone is quite revolutionary as far as I know, and other games copied this system later (like MoH as I recall). The attachment and equipment system is also almost incomparable to CoD 4. True, most other functions aren't changed much or even at all, but IMO MW2 is definitely not a CoD 4 mod. WaW is, though.

Did you try MW2, btw?

Quote

It's only worth what you're willing to pay for it. I personally found it the deal of the century for all the fun I had from it. If you don't want to buy it just because you don't feel they've been innovative enough that's your opinion of course, but IMO it's better than CoD 4 in many ways and worth its money several times over. I think that to be fair if you don't want to spend money on a game for ethical reasons like the ones you describe, you are cheating yourself out of a lot of fun.

Chyros, on 25 May 2011, 20:08, said:

Of course. Finished the campaign a couple of times and done about ~10-20 hours of multiplayer with my brother's account. I mean it's fun and all and it's a pretty good game too, but there are better games out there. Each to their own. I'd be more inclined to buy it myself if not for some other reasons (more on that below).

Chyros, on 25 May 2011, 20:08, said:

I honestly don't see it worth $90 (~70 EUR), which is what it still retails at now, nearly two years after release. Of course this is hardly IW's fault, but Activision certainly isn't doing them any favours. It's not just the lack of innovation, it's the fact that its still pretty much the most expensive fucking thing on the entirety of the Australian Steam store for what is merely a port of a previous title with a few bells and whistles added.

Most of this is of course Activision's fault, but you get the idea. Most other publishers drop the price of a game by about half a year after release, and (on Steam more than in bricks and mortar stores) there is regular sales of other publishers' titles at significantly less than their regular price (the most I've spent on a Steam game is twenty bloody dollars, and I have ~60 games). Activison does neither of these. The lowest price for MW2 on Steam here was $60, or around 45 euros and that was a one off for the single thing Activision did for the Steam Christmas sales. I bought about 20 games during that sale for about $80. Who do they think they are kidding?

I'm sorry, but it's just not worth it in Australia. Not to mention how much IWNet exasperates the shitty Australian internet.

Chyros, on 25 May 2011, 11:08, said:

I will agree with you that both the attachments and killstreak system were beneficial additional features in MW2 that did alter the game significantly enough to make it a worth while purchase, hell they even added deathstreaks, which might have been available in MW, were at least a separate entity in MW2. My concern is not that MW2 was not different enough from MW, but that MW3 will not be different enough to justify the stupidly extortionate price that Alias qutie rightly points out it is. On the current engine I fail to see what they are going to be able to offer beside new maps and some fugly new weapons.

To make the point, Modern Warfare is more about '' cool storyline and fun multiplayer '' than something new and refreshing, I personally happy with the engine aslong as single player is cool enough ( to me; multiplayer is a plus, single player itself deserves 59$) same goes for Mass Effect, remember, not much done about gameplay but it is still epic.
Edited by Gabriel Angelos, 25 May 2011 - 10:46.

Wizard, on 25 May 2011, 12:35, said:

So how about a refreshing of the current game then? I can keep playing MW2 for a while but even so it shows and I wouldn't mind everything being new again, which helps to keep the game fresh. This can be done with very few changes.

Seriously though, there is no reason at all to assume MW3 will be a MW2 mod atm. They haven't released any information on it at all.

To be honest, I don't really care about the single player in CoD. I will play it through but what has kept me playing mw2 is the amount of fun we have with chyros and stinger and other playing the multiplayer. I haven't seen anything about the multiplayer yet. If they have managed to make some changes to it and keep it interesting, I will get it just so I can have more fun with friends. Hopefully activision gets a clue and stops being an idiot and put the price of the game to sensible numbers... Not gonna happen but you can always hope.

The problem I have with COD it it's just so damn complacent, one of you mentioned that BO was shit compared to MW2, but it sold more. Furthermore I seriously dislike it when games are just ported over from console without taking advantage of the extra PC features, such as MW2. Now I haven't played MW2 with you guys, but I have at a friends and it drove me insane, the amount of cheap skill-less ways to kill people was ridiculous and bullet view kick, fuck right off.

There is also the issue of quality, people call MW2 the best shooter ever and thats simply not true. In some respects it is very very good, in others It's a complete mess. This lack of skill being able to kill makes MW2 appeal to the lowest common denominator but also appeals to actual gamers, hence it sells so well.

And last but not least, fuck activision.

Chyros, on 25 May 2011, 21:25, said:

The question is why you'd want it to be done with so few changes. Different eyecandy hardly makes a new game.

I think the last several games in the series being ports of the previous titles is enough proof, not to mention the whole elephant in the room of Activision. Can't possibly make a new game, that would cost too much. :|

Also +1 to Ion. I think the Call of Duty really could do with a longer learning curve. It's hardly of the calibre of some other shooters where if you don't play for a week it's like you never learned at all (which can be a bad thing, of course, but it does prevent an awful lot of those 12 year olds who think they're top shit).
Edited by Alias, 25 May 2011 - 11:34.

OKAY! THATS IT! FUCK ACTIVISION!

MW is just a quake-type twich-shooter with realism added to make it different. All you need is good reflexes and you can do well.
¨
FFS activision... Get your head out of your ass.. -.- the only thing that tactic will do is make you loose customers...
Edited by Wanderer, 25 May 2011 - 11:40.

Chyros, on 25 May 2011, 12:25, said:

I totally agree with you, but that is _exactly_ my point. Instead of getting those changes to the game you have already, play already, and have spent thousands of hours playing, you have to shell out another packet load for.

Wanderer, on 25 May 2011, 12:27, said:

Neither have I, but based on the way IW dealt with MW2, i.e., console programming and crappy IWNet, I believe I am justified to worry. Whilst I know that the console fanboys are no longer at IW and Activision have already shown a committment to PC players with dedis in BO, that doesn't set aside my fears one tiny bit.

Ion Cannon!, on 25 May 2011, 12:30, said:

BO may have sold more (and iirc wasn't a console port [?]), but if you check the Steam stats, MW2 is still played more and CS almost double MW2 if you really want to get into it.

There's 3 different studios making MW3. The core ppl of IW have left. Activision is being itself (a moneygrabbing asshole) = not looking very promising...

SquigPie, on 25 May 2011, 12:36, said:

Seems like that "evolution" I wanted just literally bit me in the arse.

Fuck you very much Kotick.

Wanderer, on 25 May 2011, 12:38, said:

It's nothing like Quake/UT, not in any way. I still consider those the true fast paced games and CoD a more quasi realistic shooter.

Oh so Kotick gives his word it won't change anything? You can either trust him and hope the premium content is hats and the like or follow his track record and realise theres probably going to be a subscrition or you will need to shell out to get the best weapons.
Edited by Ion Cannon!, 25 May 2011 - 12:02.

Ion Cannon!, on 25 May 2011, 13:30, said:

True, and that's one of the things that I'd like to have changed. But that can be done by changing just a few numbers and variables. You don't need to throw the entire game around for that. Damageviewkick for example is just a small numeric change in a shock file that appeared after CoD 4. Definitely something I'd change if I could, but not something that requires a new engine or anything.

Quote

Well I agree there's faults in it; you can check a whole list I once made of things I'd change in MW2 if I got the chance. This is true for all games though. I agree that you don't need to be particularly skilled to play MW2 but skill still pays off. I mean, it's not as if the newbies shake me up or anything. Some players dislike the ACR, a weapon notorious for its overpoweredness due to its utter lack of recoil, because it's too precise, which means they can't aim well enough with it to do it justice. In fact, I kind of like it that it's not that hard to play - not that I'd have trouble playing it myself, but others would, and this tends to breed a community of extremely annoying elitists that you can't have lighthearted fun with IMO.

I mean, explosives are very cheap and annoying to be up against, and I'd definitely rather have them out than in. But especially in deathmatch I can't recall ever having seen a tuber win any game, or even do remotely well. Other gametypes, especially domination, are more plagued by explosives though.

Quote

Well on that I think we can all agree .

Alias, on 25 May 2011, 13:32, said:

Those 12-year-olds are fun to destroy though 8) . And fun to call their mothers whatever they call you (8 .

SquigPie, on 25 May 2011, 13:36, said:

Yes, I agree, this is not good news. I have to say that one of their executives once said that Activision will never charge money for CoD playing (i.e. pay-to-play) but he wasn't Kotick so I hope they haven't reversed that. It's a pity they don't specify exactly what it is you'll be premiuming (and what you get if you don't) but I'll be watching this closely.

this newest development is simply a truckload of fuck. why the hell don't people boycott this shit? didn't a goof number of PC gamers boycott MW2 for it's lack of dedis?

Camille, on 25 May 2011, 13:48, said:

Alot of COD players only play COD, thats all they care about. It has become a massive brand, so whatever Activision does it will sell. I'm also pretty sure Activision wouldn't give a shit if they lost the entire PC market, as long as they can flog premium content to console players.
Edited by Ion Cannon!, 25 May 2011 - 13:06.

Camille, on 25 May 2011, 14:48, said:

Yes they did, but that's not much use since the PC community is only a small fraction of the (MW2) player base (last time I checked about 7%). You'd need the xbox and PS guys to participate.

Chyros, on 25 May 2011, 14:06, said:

Which also means getting a lot of 13 year olds to participate (not console specific btw), which ain't gonna happen.