Why is Call of Duty still getting hated on?

[dudeman162]

That's because it's an arcade game. Many Fps games do this. Does that mean that Call of Duty should be stuffted on for being a simple arcade game? Yes, I know that this game is nowhere close to being realistic, but it is fun, and that's all that matters in a video game, right?

[Ad Bot]

[Crispy_]

i honestly find the video great and the ideas for the somewhat futuristic weapons are very cool

but yeah cod has a reputation for being terrible and short so people are prob expecting this to be the same

[Strovbe]

i think people are bitches and this new call of duty looks great

[McJobless]

Because games should be more realistic than fun. That's what you're saying, right?

That's the complete opposite of what I said. I said that firstly the game isn't challenging, and that secondly the game doesn't teach any practical skills. Real warfare isn't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?

That's because it's an arcade game. Many Fps games do this. Does that mean that Call of Duty should be stuffted on for being a simple arcade game?

What's your distinction of "arcade game"? Because arcade game to me is a very easy, replayable game that continually increases in challenge the longer you play, all while contained in an Arcade that's supposed to hook you so you pay more and more money to continue playing. It's like an MMO but extremely fast-paced.

Yes, I know that this game is nowhere close to being realistic, but it is fun, and that's all that matters in a video game, right?

No, that's not all that matters in a video game, and people who say that don't study game design.

The game is not fun. The reason people like it is because they crave competition and feeling like they are dominant, and CoD allows for that. I bet you that most people don't have fun when they play CoD, only when they are winning.

Being dominant =/= fun, however. Fun = successfully learning patterns. Dominant = seeing yourself in a much better position to survive than your competition. This is why people do crazy stuff to bulk up and make them look like a living truck.

[Crispy_]

okay so let's throw super mario bros away because it doesn't teach you anything

also what does half life 2 teach? or is that a bad game too?

how about blockland?


a game doesn't need to be educational to be fun, who told you this? was it your parents?

[PurpleSir]

BRAIN AGE GOTY 2014 CUZ IT TEACHES YA STUFF

[McJobless]

okay so let's throw super mario bros away because it doesn't teach you anything

It was a game made before these theories were relevant. Even then, the game is all about accuracy and speed which are sort of relevant.

also what does half life 2 teach? or is that a bad game too?

I have no idea what it teaches. I got about 20 minutes of gameplay before I quit out of boredom.

how about blockland?

I like Blockland, because it allows you to experiment, and that's the best form of teaching. You have to learn how pieces fit together to make the best building or what have you. Creativity IS important to life right now, and Blockland allows you to express that.

a game doesn't need to be educational to be fun, who told you this? was it your parents?

My parents are part of the "games are toys" crowd. I learnt this from research done by many other people, that I compiled and compared with my own experiences and experiences of people around me.

[Char]

Real warfare isn't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?

Real street fighting isn't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?
Real jumping on stuff isn't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?
Real fighting monsters (or at least, if they were real) isn't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?
Real being in outer space isn't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?
Real tediously laying down brick by brick isn't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?
Real trials aren't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?

etc. etc.

[McJobless]

Real street fighting isn't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?
Real jumping on stuff isn't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?
Real fighting monsters (or at least, if they were real) isn't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?
Real being in outer space isn't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?
Real tediously laying down brick by brick isn't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?
Real trials aren't fun, so why are we playing games based off it?

etc. etc.

Because game developers know special methods to make things "fun".

These elements of "fun" are fun when you are first acquainted with them because you've never experienced them before (at least not within the context of the game you're playing), so you're happy to learn them. Once you've essentially mastered them or decided there's no point trying, then you'll give up, and with a lot of these skills that's quite quick.

That's why we have graphics, stories, audio etc. These add other patterns people have to learn, and they get so interested in them that they're willing to look past the weak gameplay.

[Char]

Because game developers know special methods to make things "fun".

Okay, then what the game developers have put into the series makes it fun to them. Even if it's not fun to you.

These elements of "fun" are fun when you are first acquainted with them because you've never experienced them before (at least not within the context of the game you're playing), so you're happy to learn them. Once you've essentially mastered them or decided there's no point trying, then you'll give up, and with a lot of these skills that's quite quick.

...Not quite true, but okay...

That's why we have graphics, stories, audio etc. These add other patterns people have to learn, and they get so interested in them that they're willing to look past the weak gameplay.

Or, you know, maybe they just enjoy the gameplay.

[IdeTheBird]

Cod 4 was the only good one, multiplayer wise, considering balancing wise.

[DiceyGrammar]

snip

This is the biggest load of armchair philosophy that I've ever seen in the games section.

Games teach skills? are you implying they must teach skills? as far as i'm concerned education is one of many possible functions games have, not some inherently required function

[McJobless]

Okay, then what the game developers have put into the series makes it fun to them. Even if it's not fun to you.

Just because they can, doesn't make it right. Does invading Iraq because America wants fuel make it correct?

I really wish I could just show you a video that explains what I'm trying to convey in better terms, but you would probably dismiss it as "pretentious bullstuff". I know because I used to think in exactly the same way as you, until I actually studied and saw things were a lot different.

The problem is that developers are not focusing on what makes games special. Games are about being interactive. Why is that interactive part so weak? Why are so many game developers making movies?

...Not quite true, but okay...

It is quite true, though. I posted a 2000 word brown townysis of it, and before then Raph Koster wrote a book, "A Theory of Fun", based on research about this entire line of human psychology. The problem is that it sounds so abstract that you're going to push it away and disagree.

Or, you know, maybe they just enjoy the gameplay.

The weak gameplay that, if we removed all the graphics and audio, would not keep players there for hours on end.

This is the biggest load of armchair philosophy that I've ever seen in the games section.

Games teach skills? are you implying they must teach skills? as far as i'm concerned education is one of many possible functions games have, not some inherently required function

Armchair philosophy is a new one to me 

I'm not saying games have to teach you the loving works of Shakespeare. I'm just saying that games that don't teach you relevant skills will stop being fun after a short period of time, unless they're supported by graphics, music and story.

If you love graphics, music and story, that's fantastic. I'll usually "play" a game just for that. The problem then is that you don't enjoy the game, you just enjoy the world and the atmosphere, not the gameplay.

It's a required function, but it's a very subtle function. If people knew they were learning, they'd probably be turned off games.

[McJobless]

Double post because separate things, but here's my real opinion on Call of Duty.

I hate it because of the fanbase. There's this huge fanbase of over-competitive morons who automatically declare any other video game that doesn't involve some kind of competition either "pretentious" or "boring", usually without even trying it.

We saw this with A Stanley Parable. We saw this with Gone Home. People can't seem to fathom that gameplay is more than just killing people.

Furthermore, look at the E3 gameplay video. The grenades acted handicaply, the enemies weren't anything special, the graphics so monochromatic I thought I was staring at a single pixel, and the game borrows so heavily from other games we can probably call it a library.

If you are genuinely interested in Call of Duty, it looks like a fantastic addition to the franchise, but as a standalone game, it's a piss poor representation of where this "artform" of gaming stands.

[DiceyGrammar]

Who has actually demonstrated that education mediates the relationship between games and enjoyment? I also like the catch-all "unless they're supported by graphics, music and story". "Games that don't teach anything aren't fun unless they additionally have any other standard element of gameplay"