polyh3dron
Banned
Guess you haven't played System Shock 2 then, have you Junior...
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Call of Duty 4, or What's Really Wrong with the Industry
- Thread starter aeolist
- Start date
We keep arguing over something that no one has even played fully other than reviewers. At least wait till the game is out before we start bitching that its "exactly" the same as other COD games. even so some similarity is needed for a sequel to be a sequel or it might as well be a different IP.
Sunshine introduced things which had already been done by Rare on the N64. I'm also not sure why Zack & Wiki, which by all indications is Goblins! with waggle and a tired art style, is somehow a step forward for the industry.aeolist said:
The thing you're completely missing is that innovation typically comes at the expense of polish, because it takes a few tries to get something right. Portal was fun, but it was kinda unpolished, very short, and would have died if it wasn't bundled with Orange Box. My game-playing hours and dollars are limited (much like my movie-watching and book-reading hours), and I'm much more willing to pay for a well-crafted but somewhat retreading game/book/movie than I am an inventive but flawed one. Most industries work this way. Hell, look at the Best Picture catagory since... almost forever.
And the indie scene is going to Steam/XBLA/PSN, where new concepts can be implemented cheaply.
DjangoReinhardt
Thinks he should have been the one to kill Batman's parents.
This argument is a strawman. It isn't a binary choice - it's a continuum. The industry is skewed too far towards the risk-averse side of that continuum. COD4 may or may not be the best example. How close to the ideal balance between innovation/refinement (pick your own terms here) do believe the industry to be?Stinkles said:
Put it another way: Wes Anderson was criticized for sticking too close to his formula in The Life Aquatic, which was his third movie in that style in six years. What game franchise has as much installment-to-installment variation as Anderson's movies and still receives that sort of critical reception?
The problem isn't "sequels"; the problem is that the majority of sequels are, at best, mission packs.
I don't know how much control Infinity Ward has over the franchise now (could they have told Activision not to make COD3? probably not) but it looks like a game that has a lot of effort put into it, is making use of the hardware capabilities for each system it is being released on, and will be a blast to play. What is wrong with this? Yeah it is another sequel but it's still better than the garbage coming out of Japan these days.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Play Folklore.Mooreberg said:
gregor7777
Banned
aeolist said:
Multiplayer FPS games can have differences in control, level layout, pacing, team dynamics and balancing, etc. that often can't be quantified on the outside of the box, but make a huge differnce in the way the game plays. (read gameplay)
Some of those things resonate differently with different fans of the genre.
When a dev hits all of those things as well as IW has with CoD4, then you have a great game that everyone gets hyped over.
That what we have here.
It's why people prefer CoD2 over CoD3. It's why the original Enemy Territory was great, and the beta of ET:QW was not so great.
Not playing the MP disqualifies any opinion you have on the game.
It would be like reviewing Bioshock solely on the basis of the hacking minigame.
gregor7777 said:
Again, this is a bad criticism. I don't think aeolist is criticizing the game in and of itself; he's criticizing the fact that it's a boring and uninventive rehash of things we've seen a million times before. It might be a blast to play, but that doesn't mean it's making any headway into interesting new directions for the medium. And you don't have to play it to necessarily be able to say that. I didn't need to see Transformers to realize it was tripe that wasn't going to do anything new or interesting.
gregor7777
Banned
Campster said:
Innovation > Fun ?
If the game is fun, and people who play MP games religiously are telling you it's fresh and new, then what is the problem?
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
Did you know you can kill Nazi's with some blood and get a T (CoD3), but if you take the same blood/language (hell, even game engine) and make the Nazi's modern day soliders your game is rated M (Cod4)?
Which is why I don't understand the M rating on Halo. It neither has any real significant blood/gore (no more than CoD does, really), no real language issues, and you're fighting against aliens... all the critera for a T rating.
I just think Halo wants an M rating - its really not an M rated game.
Which is why I don't understand the M rating on Halo. It neither has any real significant blood/gore (no more than CoD does, really), no real language issues, and you're fighting against aliens... all the critera for a T rating.
I just think Halo wants an M rating - its really not an M rated game.
gregor7777
Banned
John Harker said:
I'd agree except that it would have made an excellent pack-in if it hadn't been rated M.
Microsoft could have used that in the future.
Andokuky said:
Because, again, he's not bashing the game itself. If this were a review where he said "THIS GAME SUX SO BAD I GIVE IT A 7" then we could just dismiss it as stupidity.
But the complaint that we're in a creative rut and our skyrocketing budgets make us so risk averse that we just see endless sequels of every breath of fresh air we get is a valid one; and Call of Duty 4 (and its hype) reflect that mentality. It's a fair assessment, and to say "I don't see why we're even talking about this" is to dodge the question entirely.
Campster said:
How exactly is blindly calling the game "the same as 4 years ago" not bashing the game? However you want to cut it, he's basing it off a short demo of one campaign level and admittedly has never lived the dream that is COD4 multiplayer, where the game really shines.
Andokuky said:
Because it is almost exactly the same? The usual dead serious military setting, the usual plastic-y dedication to "realism," the usual "shoot the enemies in the face before they shoot you in the face" gameplay...
If a leveling mechanic and a few cute twists are all it takes to reinvent the concept of a shooter to you, especially in the wake of Portal, I don't know what to say.
But again, no one's saying the game is bad. By all accounts COD4 is a blast, and I'm happy for those enjoying it. But it certainly reflects the notion of this industry being creatively bankrupt and uninterested in pursuits any higher than "fun" and "cash." And to those who want to see us be more than a diversion factory, that's an important issue to overcome.
gregor7777
Banned
skip said:
Certainly we have a right to condemn entire genres based on one level of one half of one game pre-release.
Campster said:
Perhaps I'm the jaded one...I'll take Fun every day.
devilscallmedad
Banned
Every fucking time, the innovation crying fanboys/ defense force/ manbabies need to shut up and let people enjoy their fucking games. " Waaah waah halo 3 is still a shooter waah waaah COD4 wiii wiii ". Please shut the fuck up the industry is catering the needs of everyone, there is a huge variety of games available with both innovation and refinement going on. The sky isn't falling and there is nothing wrong with the industry twats.
Campster said:
Sequels normally don't mess too much with the recipe, especially ones successful enough to spawn a 4th game. And it's been this way as far back as I can remember, way back before gaming blew up and budgets skyrocketed with it. This is just a bunch of bitching about nothing based on a demo.
Also, having played CoD2 BRO and COD3 I can tell you the multiplayer alone is upped about 1000 notches. So I laugh at the bitching. Refinement and fun > massive change and fucking up a good thing
gregor7777
Banned
skip said:
LOL, why stop there? We're all fond of passing around bullshots of games even after release, and as a measuring stick of the quality of the game.
I say review those. That way we can all see these games for what they are (art) and remove all of that nasty "fun" business.
Fallout-NL
Member
chespace said:
Come on now. Forza 2's demo certainly didn't have all the cars or traks, and yet, I was still able to determine it was going to be a spectacular racing game. Now why wouldn't it work the same way with the CoD demo? All the essential parts are there.
eudaemonic
Member
For every person who feels this way about the industry, there are nine others still very happy and buying the games.
Fallout-NL said:
Except for the multiplayer part, which many have said will be COD4's greatest contribution to society.
At any rate, there have also been plenty of games which have had mediocre demos but turned out excellent nonetheless.
So I know it's not November yet, and the wait must be excruciating, for both lovers and haters alike, but... WAIT WE MUST AND WAIT WE SHOULD.
Campster, if you have it all figured out - get into the game biz and put up or shut up. Innovation takes time. Things will evolve. You just complain too much.
Gaming is great right now. It's the best it's ever been and will only get better.
Boobies and all
We definitely need more boobs. I know you would agree. :lol
Games have to have clearly defined goals, and rules in which that the player has to adhere to. It all works out to be the same thing in the end, it's how you combine things and change things slightly that makes or breaks a game. Many of you people know nothing about game development, so please stop pretending you actually do. You couldn't come up with something innovative to save your life most likely.
Gaming is great right now. It's the best it's ever been and will only get better.
Boobies and all
We definitely need more boobs. I know you would agree. :lolGames have to have clearly defined goals, and rules in which that the player has to adhere to. It all works out to be the same thing in the end, it's how you combine things and change things slightly that makes or breaks a game. Many of you people know nothing about game development, so please stop pretending you actually do. You couldn't come up with something innovative to save your life most likely.
Fallout-NL
Member
chespace said:
Yes, to that I say, give me a multiplayer demo.
Of All Trades
Member
I think you mean RE6, since before RE4 we had CV and RE0. And REmake.elostyle said:
Agent Ironside
Member
This cat thinks he can ball.
Sometimes things don't have to innovate to be fun you know? They can be a deeper more refined proven formula to work... And the MP proves just that... It seriously rocks out with it's cock out... I'm actually counting down the days for it to hit... Then, I'm counting the days until the 2 new Socom's hit
Scullibundo said:
Good point. Sequels/franchises have always been attempts to take advantage of a fanbase to bring in sales, and that usually means keeping things the way they were. And while that pleases the casual market, us "game critics" want to see something new. Something different.
I say to hell with franchises!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHOS WITH MEH?!
Version 3.0
Member
There's nothing necessarily wrong with a game not changing much. Innovation does NOT equal fun. Innovation is good, and necessary for the industry, but not for individual game series, especially ones based on real life. Madden, for example, can't change all that much--because it's based on a real game that doesn't change much.
Same goes for Call of Duty. How much different can it be, without being a different game? The question is, is it fun? Is it good?
I, for one, would be very happy with "just" graphical upgrades to a lot of games. Other games get old after one or two iterations. Quite honestly, the shooter genre is pretty shallow, and even games that do their best to maximize what it can do (like Bioshock, recently) have a tough time being different. But that's okay, because running around and shooting stuff has been great game since the slingshot was invented.
Same goes for Call of Duty. How much different can it be, without being a different game? The question is, is it fun? Is it good?
I, for one, would be very happy with "just" graphical upgrades to a lot of games. Other games get old after one or two iterations. Quite honestly, the shooter genre is pretty shallow, and even games that do their best to maximize what it can do (like Bioshock, recently) have a tough time being different. But that's okay, because running around and shooting stuff has been great game since the slingshot was invented.