I find it hillarious.
Call of Duty: Black Ops
#22
Posted 13 November 2010 - 09:15 PM
#23
Posted 13 November 2010 - 11:04 PM
#24
Posted 13 November 2010 - 11:44 PM
しかし、私に値するものを手に入れる
#25
Posted 13 November 2010 - 11:53 PM
Edited by hypno toad, 13 November 2010 - 11:54 PM.
#26
Posted 14 November 2010 - 01:13 AM
This pretty much explain your question
While some statements in this video are exagerated, I believe in the main point of it: in games the most important factor on it is not ground breaking story, graphics or new elements, but the fact that the game is fun, so thats why every call of duty game is hyped, doesn't matter if you are a fan of the franchise or not, shooting the hell out of your enemies with fancy weapons is aways fun, and thats why this series is sucesuful, and yeah, I know, they also bad mouth call of duty in this video.
Edited by alexander, 14 November 2010 - 01:17 AM.
#27
Posted 14 November 2010 - 02:45 AM
While some statements in this video are exaggerated, I believe in the main point of it: in games the most important factor on it is not ground breaking story, graphics or new elements, but the fact that the game is fun, so thats why every call of duty game is hyped, doesn't matter if you are a fan of the franchise or not, shooting the hell out of your enemies with fancy weapons is aways fun, and thats why this series is successful, and yeah, I know, they also bad mouth call of duty in this video.
Games cannot be fun on the internet, that is a fundamental rule.
Example One: Hackers. Aimbotting and cheating are evident on every game that has an internet connection, one way or another.
Example Two: Kids thinking they're qualified to be administrators simply because they're made one. There's a big difference between qualified and evidently.
Example Three: Differing connections between every computer, coupled in with graphics differences, will allow one player to have an edge over another no matter what, thus destroying the word 'skill' in relation to an internet video-game.
The only reason I buy Call of Duty games is for the story, albeit little there is beyond yet another American shill propaganda operation. It does allow me to live my fantasy, of an invasion of the United States whereas Washington, D.C. burns and there is little to a damn we can do to stop those who are invading
Oh, and thanks for linking to the Yahtzee rip-off; like I need to watch an American try and rip off Croshaw to make my day any more unfulfilled.
Edited by Kamina-Yoshi, 14 November 2010 - 02:47 AM.
#28
Posted 14 November 2010 - 04:15 AM
Example One: Hackers. Aimbotting and cheating are evident on every game that has an internet connection, one way or another.
Example Two: Kids thinking they're qualified to be administrators simply because they're made one. There's a big difference between qualified and evidently.
Example Three: Differing connections between every computer, coupled in with graphics differences, will allow one player to have an edge over another no matter what, thus destroying the word 'skill' in relation to an internet video-game.
The only reason I buy Call of Duty games is for the story, albeit little there is beyond yet another American shill propaganda operation. It does allow me to live my fantasy, of an invasion of the United States whereas Washington, D.C. burns and there is little to a damn we can do to stop those who are invading
Oh, and thanks for linking to the Yahtzee rip-off; like I need to watch an American try and rip off Croshaw to make my day any more unfulfilled.
Well, I'm afraid that the way you treat games won't take you too far Kamina, you know how the game comunity is, part of the gamers are casual gamers that probaly won't even care about your opinion on the actual game industry now days because they just beat one game and move to another, so they don't really care, while the other portion of gamers are the fanboys that will consider your toughts an sacrilege and flame you to death. I aways consider all elements on games important, such as graphics, story and the fun factor. But now I don't understand what really can please you in a game Kamina, all you do is give negative reviews, say what kind of game you consider ground breaking, what would you recomend as an good game? And personally I find Pure Pwnage an very funny show, you should give it a try.
#29
Posted 14 November 2010 - 05:26 AM
Example One: Hackers. Aimbotting and cheating are evident on every game that has an internet connection, one way or another.
Example Two: Kids thinking they're qualified to be administrators simply because they're made one. There's a big difference between qualified and evidently.
Example Three: Differing connections between every computer, coupled in with graphics differences, will allow one player to have an edge over another no matter what, thus destroying the word 'skill' in relation to an internet video-game.
The only reason I buy Call of Duty games is for the story, albeit little there is beyond yet another American shill propaganda operation. It does allow me to live my fantasy, of an invasion of the United States whereas Washington, D.C. burns and there is little to a damn we can do to stop those who are invading
Oh, and thanks for linking to the Yahtzee rip-off; like I need to watch an American try and rip off Croshaw to make my day any more unfulfilled.
I've had enough of this. Look Yoshi, everyone has a different idea of what they consider fun, instead of calling people morons for having fun in a game you hate, go do whatever it is that you do for fun (apart from trolling fanbases you dislike, it is just as childish as the fanbase you hate so much).
And the "games on internet cannot be fun" thing is absolute rubbish.
1. Yes, you will find aimbotting and other forms of cheating in some games on the PC, but if a server is administrated properly, they will get kicked and banned pretty quickly, and for all of the games I play, their are always a tonne of great servers to play on with good Admins. Also, this does not apply to consoles at all, I have never encountered any cheating on consoles
2. Yep, this is a pain, but like I said, their are always great servers to play on, just have to find them. This point also doesn't apply to consoles because they use a P2P matchmaking system where their are no admins.
3. This isn't true at all unless you are on a Dial-up connection, which are not useful for games at all these days. All you need is the minimum speed for a game, you won't get a huge advantage with a 100Mbit connection, I play with a pathetic 1.5Mbit connection and I do fairly well most games. The same goes for graphics differences, my friend has a pretty bad PC, yet he always finishes top 3, so again, all you really need is the minimum requirements. And one last thing, this point does not apply to consoles either, everyone you play against has the same console with the same hardware.
I am pretty much the opposite of you, I only play COD games for the MP. I do play the SP campaigns eventually, however they are all pretty bad when compared to almost every other story driven game I have played. Anyway, the point is, their is no reason to hate on an entire fanbase just because you don't like the game or if you have had bad experiences with them. Every game has it's good parts and bad parts, including the fans.
Now, as for the game itself, I think it's great so far. I am extremely glad they nerfed noob tubes and quickscopers. The only problem is that I play the PC version mainly, and they were/still kind of are screwed with a lot of frame rate issues and server side lag, but they are gradually fixing this with patches. Wager matches are epic fun though, my favourite is Gun Game since I used to play that heaps back in my Counter Strike days.
I am Level 35 at the moment, I mainly use the FAMAS assault rifle with the reflex attachment and the Lightweight, Hardened and Second Chance Pro perks. I also use the M16 occasionally, along with the MP5K, AK74U and Skorpion SMGs. For anyone else that has played some MP, what level are you? and what guns/attachments/perks do you guys use?
#30
Posted 14 November 2010 - 11:19 AM
why yes. that is my adorable sister hugging a dakimura. got a problem?
#32
Posted 14 November 2010 - 02:46 PM
#33
Posted 14 November 2010 - 03:16 PM
#34
Posted 14 November 2010 - 03:21 PM
I'm a girl so all that stuff Zero talks about is a foreign language.
Video games and fantasy football?
Do you has a sister my age?
#35
Posted 14 November 2010 - 03:43 PM
why yes. that is my adorable sister hugging a dakimura. got a problem?
#37
Posted 14 November 2010 - 05:02 PM
Oh, and by the way, I love how you need to buy a super-computer for each and every game just to be able to play it on the lowest settings. Real efficient system you have there, guys. Valve only requires you have enough to run one of their games, and thus you can run them all efficiently. Call of Duty, on the other hand...
MASSIVE DERP.
Edited by Kamina-Yoshi, 14 November 2010 - 05:21 PM.
#38
Posted 14 November 2010 - 05:27 PM
Uh........ you should've known from day 1 that it wouldn't follow MW2's story (an excuse of a story that was). Treyarch doesn't do sequel's to Activision's own games, they do sequels to their own iterations of COD.
MW2 had a piss poor story, at least MW1 kept me wanting to know more. So your excuse of not buying it should've been realized by day 1, not now.
And you're expecting MW3 next year? Good luck, the original team on the MW series has pretty much left Activision, and there's still legal conflict going on. It's likely MW3 won't be seen until late 2011 or 2012. It's only in "pre-production", and has been for a few months now.
#39
Posted 14 November 2010 - 05:35 PM
why yes. that is my adorable sister hugging a dakimura. got a problem?
#40
Posted 14 November 2010 - 07:03 PM
I think the new studio is Respawn Entertainment, they're working with EA on their next game.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users