Ea

This entire time linearity meant something else, worst thing though, I wrote "here hoping you don't mix linearity with words monotonous and repetetive again" (because you did that once already), twice, and you couldn't simply say yes and saves us a lot of trouble.

By that logic of yours near every FPS is as repetetive as it gets (not just COD and Halo because guess what, you do exact same shit in other FPS), and not just that, but racing and fighting games as well. In first you literaly just race cars and in second you fight, that's it. Let's just forget that both Halo and COD offer dozen multiplayer mods, in each you have different objectives where difficulty, scenario, your role and how you handle your opponents are completly up to you and other players. I'm wondering does that go under monotonous and repetitive? Wanna know what's repetitive, Donkey Kong Country and Kirby games. You literaly just walk down one path and jump on/suck in enemies, how about that, and here you thought Nintendo doesn't make repetetive games.

But Donkey Kong and Kirby games are ****ing awesome.

Now I don't really know why Xanatos brought Nintendo in to defend CoD. Nintendo games are at least fun, despite being linear in a good way without being too repetitive and short. Donkey Kong has many levels, different settings, enemies, you play with different styles. Same thing for Mario and Zelda and Kirby and Metroid. Things change there. CoD is linear in a bad way. Too much of the same shooting and crouching and going through corridors is happening for many games now. If it didn't force you to do stuff and gave you options to use different approaches and tactics, it would be way better. That's why people hate it so much. It's a game on rails, like an arcade game. Not always but alot of the times.

Xanatos didn't brought Nintendo up, Pete did, after which you claimed they don't make linear games (repetitive in your dictionary) to which I responded. And what kind of setting and enemy variety do you expect of a real world shooter, wanna fight dragons in space? COD is set in real world locations, though I guess to you snowy mountains, deserts of Iraq, streets of Paris and whatnot are pretty much the same setting. As for enemy variety, you do realize you fight humans exclusively, it's a real world shooter you know not Wolfenstein, with that being said not every human poses the same threat plus you have occasional tanks and choppers to take down.

Love how COD is short according to you because all of a sudden multiplayer doesn't count in multiplayer oriented game.

Since when do you play Donkey Kong in different styles, you literaly walk down one path and jump, that's pretty much it, sure you have sections where you use a rhino or ride a mine cart, but then again you have sections in COD where you use tanks, choppers, gliders and all sorts of vehicles.

Funny thing though, you pretty much described Half Life 2 (gameplay wise), and that game just happened to be the very best game of last decade according to pretty much every video game site out there.

I didn't just mention enemy variety, that was an example. Challenge variety, different situations, different pacing. In CoD you're rushing, killing enemies without being able to step away from the conflict, collect items, weapons or do anything else that immerses you more. Then you get thrown on a new map with totally different guns, everything from zero. In HL you investigated, solved puzzles, rode vehicles and killed, but there was more variety of things you could do, aside from just rushing through maps nonstop.

Yeah, I'm starting to get how CoD is way more oriented towards MP, and in MP all you really care about is go guns blazing without any immersion. Still, why not make SP more SP oriented and longer? Or why even bother with the campaigns if it's MP oriented?

Wait, what? Let me get this straight, you want more enemy variety in a game where you fight humans almost exclusively, though most importantly you want slower pace and time to explore during events of world war or other major modern conflicts where, and this may sound strange to you and only you, pace and conflict should be fast and hectic to begin with, because you know, it's a war and all, you actually want to immerse yourself in a war game with slower pace and time time to explore, not the other way around...

Attachment 23204

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loaf

I didn't say linear. I really think Odin doesn't know what linear truly means.

Did you not play Halo 4? Everything about that game has Call of Duty influence.

From Halo 2 to Halo: Reach noone would stay after a match, everyone would leave the party and re queue...not anymore in Halo 4.

Halo 2 - Reach you always start a new game....not in Halo 4 since Call of Duty had the whole join a game in progress with the way it does MatchMaking Halo 4 added it.

Halo Reach stated it will have loadouts. It didn't...Halo 4 it does and they act just like Custom Loadouts in Call of Duty. Killstreaks were added in Call of Duty...Halo 4 has them now. You want that nice gun? go unlock it just like the latest Call of Duties.

They made it so you don't have to hold any button to pick up the flag or bomb but FPS's have had that feature for a long time.

---

I did want to touch on this. The good ole "Halo 4, Call of Halo, Halo of Duty, etc"
The games are still very, very different.
Halo is built on a Arena shooter base premise with influences of other genres. Halo was never meant to have just one defining FPS genre, its one of the reasons that made it so much fun. You wanted to play large scale battles you could, you want that arena shooter competitive settings its there, you want to kick back and play funny gametypes still there.
The things that were "taken" from CoD were either a necessary evil, dont actually have as much influence over the game as people think, or was just 343i trying to evolve something into the game.

Join in Progress falls into the first category. Not a lot of people are happy with this choice, but 343i has implemented it better than CoD ever has. Sure when Halo 4 first came out you might join those games that are already over, but it rarely happens anymore. Nobody likes being down a person, nobody likes joining a losing game, nobody likes a quitter. So what what are you going to do? Just end the game after someone quits? Its very rare that in that you and your buddies will amass the win over the other team down a player. JiP is a terrible solution to this problem, but for now its the only solution.

All guns are unlocked within the first 11 ranks of Halo 4. There is no prestige, no losing the guns again. You could say that this is like CoD, but its really not. Its trying to help introduce players into the class based system that 343i tried to implement into Halo.

Custom Loadouts like from Call of Duty? Please, you act like they were the first to do it. They were just trying to evolve Halo to bring out individuality in a rather faceless game. None of the perks actually have that much influence over the game. One specific perk isn't going to help you dominate anymore that if you didn't have it. Stability is just about the only one that gives players an unfair advantage and thats only if you can't control your recoil on certain weapons.

Ordinance drops are in less than 50% of the playlists. They are nothing like killstreaks either. Its a random pot luck to see if you get a good weapon or a needler.

Lastly the core aspects of the games are still nothing alike. Shields, grenades, melee, all play a much more vital role than they do in CoD. That has never changed over the life of the series.

I don't want to play a game that was totally different than the other but now is still "similar".

Halo 4 is more alike Call of Duty than Battlefield is the Call of Duty. That's sad.

Call of Duty used to be nothing but serious FPS until it's downfall happened, Call of Duty 2. Main reason why I dislike CoD. The smallest map in CoD used to be Carentan (China Town in CoD4) now that's the average size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

That's not what I've read from people talking about the endings. Oh well, I guess I just read the bad reviews more and got my conclusions from them. I guess you win this time. EA is not as bad as I thought. Now on to defending it with you. Maybe you should also defend Halo and CoD, now that you've gotten your groove on.

---

Why would you ever come to a forum to talk shit on a game that you haven't played? This is the lowest of low. You're adding fuel to a fire, you're witch hunting. Except the witch is innocent, the fire doesn't need more fuel. You are THAT GUY. It's not cool to go with the mainstream opinion just because you want to fit in. It doesn't help the situation you're arguing against, and it doesn't help your credibility.

Anyway, EA is doing a decent job at being EA. Which is, to market games toward a large demographic. It's incredibly difficult to fund small-company games with a niche market, especially when developers and programmers already have insane work schedules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanatos

Wait, what? Let me get this straight, you want more enemy variety in a game where you fight humans almost exclusively, though most importantly you want slower pace and time to explore during events of world war or other major modern conflicts where, and this may sound strange to you and only you, pace and conflict should be fast and hectic to begin with, because you know, it's a war and all, you actually want to immerse yourself in a war game with slower pace and time time to explore, not the other way around...

Attachment 23204

---

Nah, I don't want enemy variety in CoD. What I want is levels to branch out, raids and missions not be forced super fast paced and ultra action packed. I want to play as a special forces commando who gets to investigate the enemy territory, figure out stuff, unlock weapons and do different types of missions. I don't want to be a simple soldier getting thrown into the meat grinder. That's for raging fanboys like you who watched Rambo 20 times a day when they were young. No, thank you.

I am a raging fanboy who watched Rambo 20 times a day for stating that it's only natural for a real world shooter set in a midst of major war to have fast pace and hectic battles because war is hectic to begin with...

Attachment 23208

I honestly don't know what I expected from a guy who thinks backspace issue in a game has something to do with "console limitation".

And you enjoy it, because you're a hectic CoD fanboy with a Rambo complex. Now go on, immerse yourself with your corridor shooter and pretend you're cool.

And where exactly did I say I enjoy COD, FPS games in general, or is it just another one of your assumptions.

Because you're defensive and butthurt I label CoD as linear, repetitive and dull as hell. Now that we've past what linear means, you still think I want super enemy variety and other crap I only gave example of as to what makes games more interesting in general. You have to pull me by the words, twist them, reinterpret them and make me look like an idiot. Either that or you just enjoy making fun of people. But I don't really think you really enjoy making fun of people that much, it's more something to do with being defensive about CoD, feeling entitled to defend it, like the world's gonna end if you don't. Don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by che

Why would you ever come to a forum to talk shit on a game that you haven't played? This is the lowest of low. You're adding fuel to a fire, you're witch hunting. Except the witch is innocent, the fire doesn't need more fuel. You are THAT GUY. It's not cool to go with the mainstream opinion just because you want to fit in. It doesn't help the situation you're arguing against, and it doesn't help your credibility.

Anyway, EA is doing a decent job at being EA. Which is, to market games toward a large demographic. It's incredibly difficult to fund small-company games with a niche market, especially when developers and programmers already have insane work schedules.

---

Except I played CoD before and my opinions stand with many others'. CoD is overused and overspun piece of poo, at least for all it's sp is worth. If they make it now for mp in mind, why not just copy paste a war movie in to let people watch it? Same effect would've been made. Movies are short, they're jam packed with action and you don't have to bother yourself with doing stuff there, just watching and enjoying the action. All immersion is right there.

Now I think this CoD crap has gone off topic long enough. EA isn't too bad, it has good games. I don't think Xanatos was too accurate about people hating on it that much. Must be another one of his people's opinions issues where he gets super worked up about how they dared to diss on his precious. People hated it for ME ending, but that doesn't mean they hate it that much in general. Can't listen to angry mobs and draw conclusions. EA isn't really all that great at storytelling in the first place. It's games are mostly sports and action, are they not? That's why it is kind of wrong to use ME as an example.

I defend some of it's points, ergo I am COD fanboy... logic at it's finest. I don't make you look like an idiot, honest, you're doing that just fine on your own. It's not like I made you bash a video game you haven't actually played at all or know anything about "cough"Mass Effect"cough", I'm not at fault either you consider fast pace and hectic battles a bad way to immerse yourself in a game set in midst of war (taking your time in midst of war is apparently the right way), it's not like you argued linearity even though it meant something else entirely...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

Except I played CoD before and my opinions stand with many others'. CoD is overused and overspun piece of poo, at least for all it's sp is worth. If they make it now for mp in mind, why not just copy paste a war movie in to let people watch it? Same effect would've been made. Movies are short, they're jam packed with action and you don't have to bother yourself with doing stuff there, just watching and enjoying the action. All immersion is right there.

---

che was referring to your Mass Effect witch hunt, look at the exact part he quoted, ah typical Odin.

~ AUTO-MERGED POSTS ~

Quote:

---

I don't think Xanatos was too accurate about people hating on it that much. Must be another one of his people's opinions issues where he gets super worked up about how they dared to diss on his precious

---

EA has been chosen as the worst company in America second year around next to Bank of America and Exxon Mobil, near every EA related topic is crowded with haters (you may check IGN, Gamespot, Gamesradar... if you will), worst thing though a man who just few posts back hated EA for what turned out to be reasons he couldn't possibly back up (microtransactions and Mass Effect among others) is telling me people don't hate on EA that much... yeah, it's definitely me imagining things.

I'm going to go play CoD right now.

Meh, what's the use talking to you about what games are good or not, if all you do is pull me by the words and draw conclusions. Hectic games are cool, linear games are cool, simple, complex games are cool as long as they're fun. Let's just leave it at that and CoD behind, because it's something you're really bent on defending. That's you Xanatos, all you at it's finest. You pick my words at random that you've read. Hmm lets see: linear, enemy variety, hectic, story, Nintendo, challenge, open world, missions. Then you take them, mash them together and draw a conclusion that this is what I want to see in all games and what I find canon. Yes Xanatos, that's it. Awesome stuff.

About EA, people can vote it down if there's a game or 2 they didn't like and even 2 games can make people leave an impression of it being total crap. But EA isn't all that bad. A couple of games isn't enough to judge it. But that's how things work. The final games leave impressions and make people judge based on them. I was also wrong to judge it based on ME. I realized it doesn't make alot of rpg type games anyways. It's mostly action and sport. Every dev team has it's strengths and weaknesses.

It's not the games themselves...it's the decisions they force upon the companies finishing the games up.

I.E. the Mass Effect ending. Even though Bioware told us they had Mass Effect 3 story basically under wraps when Mass Effect 2 was in the makes but that ending screams EA had them rush the game. Mass Effect 2 was in the middle of like 2 more DLCs a month or so right before Mass Effect 3. I get it to have the feel of the 2 games happening back to back but from Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect 3 felt way to short of a time between them. EA influence.

I see. Yeah, rushing devs is bad. Greedy f8cks. That happens with many companies though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin1199

Let's just leave it at that and CoD behind, because it's something you're really bent on defending.

---

And you're bent on bashing it up to the point where you're willing to argue COD with a guy that wasn't refering to it whatsoever or even mentioned it once in his post, because that's completely different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loaf

I.E. the Mass Effect ending. Even though Bioware told us they had Mass Effect 3 story basically under wraps when Mass Effect 2 was in the makes but that ending screams EA had them rush the game. Mass Effect 2 was in the middle of like 2 more DLCs a month or so right before Mass Effect 3. I get it to have the feel of the 2 games happening back to back but from Mass Effect 2 to Mass Effect 3 felt way to short of a time between them. EA influence.

---

Huge part of the game leaked right before it's release, Karpyshyn, the main author behind Mass Effect and some other games, leaving at the end of Mass Effect 2 didn't help either, sudden changes had to be made. I think those are two main reasons why Mass Effects ending turned out the way it did. To be honest though Karpyshyn's ending wasn't that much better, with that being said it would certainly make players think more which ending to choose since both of his endings had a win-lose scenario.