Quote from: Batch on June 03, 2015, 03:46:37 AM

How does it hurt the industry?

bad games flooding industry = bad industry

i don't give a fuck how profitable it is, i'm speaking in terms of quality products

just because the general public is too stupid to figure out that there's better games out there than CoD doesn't mean a damn thing

Yes it does? Your opinion does not define what profits the industry, now, is it bad in terms of story, depth and innovative quality, yes, does it provide fun without having to really think fuck yes it does. It offers entertainment, and at the end of the day that's what a game is meant to do.

It is quality in this sense, it provides to some people a short spur of fun after work, on a friday night with friends and kids just fucking eat it up, its short, fun and delivers in this sense. I haven't bought a CoD since MW2 but I know what they are, I myself don't like them, I prefer something else, but I can see what it is and what it offers it does it well.

If people really didnt want it, it wouldnt be pumping millions into the industry each year. Now, is it good for the industry in an innovative stance? No not really, it's trying sometimes, but it shows that if something the same with a fresh coat of paint can sell each year, it shows devs to lack effort after an initial burst of genius. BUT is it good for the industry in a financial stance? Yes.

it's generally unethical to dupe consumers into buying shit products for their hard-earned dosh

You use the word unethical in completely inappropriate situation you know?

Quote from: Verbatim on June 03, 2015, 03:49:33 AM

it's generally unethical to dupe consumers into buying shit products for their hard-earned dosh

You use the word unethical in completely inappropriate situation you know?

it was perfectly appropriate, actually

duping consumers be bad

You want CoD to die but yet the only reason you would get the MCC is if it had the ability to mix armor pieces. How is CoD any worse than you wanting to get a game just for armor changing?

Advanced Warfare and the Black Ops series are actually decent.

CoD is bad for the industry, not financially, but for quality.
And before someone responds with the "b-but quality is subjective", shut the fuck up. Quality is only subjective to a certain degree.
CoD goes past that. Putting out the same shit each year is objectively bad.

People buying recycled shit each year shows developers that you don't need to do anything because people will eat it up anyway.
Sure, it'd bring in money, but that doesn't matter if the industry continues to go down the spiraling shithole it's currently on.

But quality is subjective.

Quote from: Fedorekd on June 03, 2015, 06:59:29 AM

Quote from: Lemön on June 03, 2015, 06:57:12 AM

CoD is bad for the industry, not financially, but for quality.
And before someone responds with the "b-but quality is subjective", shut the fuck up. Quality is only subjective to a certain degree.
CoD goes past that. Putting out the same shit each year is objectively bad.

People buying recycled shit each year shows developers that you don't need to do anything because people will eat it up anyway.
Sure, it'd bring in money, but that doesn't matter if the industry continues to go down the spiraling shithole it's currently on.

But quality is subjective.

your mum is subjective

at least my mum loves me

Black Ops series hasn't let me down yet. I got a beta key and as long as it's good, I'll be buying BO3

Haven't bought cod since bo2 but I'm probably buying this one because zombies

Quote from: Lemön on June 03, 2015, 06:57:12 AM

Putting out the same shit each year is objectively bad.

>"COD is objectively bad because it lacks innovation and puts out the same game"
>thinking Assassin's Creed is amazing

Lemon please. AC is generally regarded as one of the most repetitive gaming franchises there is, bringing out hardly innovative games on at least a yearly basis. Not saying that CoD is any better, but I would put AC up on the same level of bringing out virtually the same game in a new environment with some slight gameplay tweaks.

Call of duty uses the same mechanics and does the same thing every year with each new installment.

Assassin's Creed uses the same mechanics and does different things in different settings with each new installment.

There's a big difference in experience between AC3 and AC4. Can't say that about MW2 and MW3 at all.

And it's not like I think every Ac is 'amazing'. I think we both acknowledge that AC1 and Revelations are average, that AC3 is bad and that Unity is an absolute travesty.

If you're going to give credit to AC for changing its setting, then you have to at least acknowledge what CoD has covered so far.

I give AC credit because it changes gameplay and the experience. Walking through the narrow streets of Florence, sailing across the sea of the Carribean or hunting in the woods of America (though that's my least favourite one) is a substantially different experience when compared to each other. I don't feel like that about most CoDs.

Same goes for "not doing different things".

I meant things that change the core experience or how you play.

Trying to claim that AC is innovative

Never said that. It just knows how to ever so slightly change the sequels that each of them deserves their right as thir own installment in the series.

There's a big difference in experience between AC3 and AC4. Can't say that about MW2 and MW3 at all.

I literally just chose the first two games of each series that came to my mind. AC2 - AC Brotherhood; while one would mainly rely on counter in AC 2 the kill series feature introduced in Brotherhood changed the way you played quite a lot. You favoured a more offensive playstyle, keeping the chain up.
CoD Blops - AW; Double Jump. Useless in Campaign since NPCs seem to aim at you even better when using it. In PvP it has a recognisable effect.

Black Ops series hasn't let me down yet. I got a beta key and as long as it's good, I'll be buying BO3

This nigga knows Treyarch can redeem CoD.