PDA

View Full Version : MW3 Review - 5/5



Heister
07-11-2011, 12:31 PM
http://www.allaboutthegames.co.uk/feature_story.php?headline=Call-of-Duty--Modern-Warfare-3-Review&article_id=12203

"Aside from the obvious tweaks to the game's multiplayer, there's nothing in MW3 that should surprise anyone that's played any of the previous games. But for fans of the series that's no bad thing. New maps, weapons, killstreaks and modes are all that's required to keep the faithful, well, faithful. The single player, meanwhile, rather than being a throwaway companion to the real meat and bones of the game is instead a brilliantly bombastic showcase of set-pieces and action. Take Call of Duty for what it is and embrace its dumb, nonsensical and scripted, but nonetheless hugely entertaining action sensibilities. And for those that continue to dismiss to the series as soul-less and immature, in an industry where we celebrate games like Bulletstorm for using the term 'dick tits' or Saints Row 3 where you can bludgeon people to death with a giant dildo, perhaps some perspective is required."


I think that's a fair comment at the end there.


Edit: Looks like this is a review of the 360 version. Clicking the reviewers name brings up his Xbox 360 gamercard which shows MW3.

Althea
07-11-2011, 12:37 PM
Not really, I think it's a bit of a daft comment. Bulletstorm and Saints Row 3 are supposed to be immature, because they're exaggerated piss-takes.

I don't think anyone has ever criticised the CoD franchise for being immature, rather the people who play it.

agentorange
07-11-2011, 12:40 PM
"Ok guys people are starting to not take the games story seriously anymore, what should we do?"

"Let's pretend it was just a big joke all along, we were NEVER taking it seriously!"

"Hahahahah yeah, hahahaha gotcha!"

soldant
07-11-2011, 12:44 PM
Sure is a change from CoD4's "dying alone in a nuclear wasteland" aspect. IT WAS A JOKE ALL ALONG. APRIL FRIGGIN' FOOLS!

Drake Sigar
07-11-2011, 01:02 PM
This review slurped a little too much jizz for my tastes, it felt like reading an interview from a sales rep.

Wizardry
07-11-2011, 01:03 PM
How did this game get a 5/5?

metalangel
07-11-2011, 01:03 PM
But MW1 felt real and serious in its story. And that was part of the thrill! But is it more silly than BLOPS?

Heister
07-11-2011, 01:06 PM
How did this game get a 5/5?

It sounds pretty good to me mate.

metalangel
07-11-2011, 01:11 PM
Especially from a site with so much authoritah! I love the way their "submit article" tab covers up the review as I'm trying to read it.

Heister
07-11-2011, 01:13 PM
Especially from a site with so much authoritah! I love the way their "submit article" tab covers up the review as I'm trying to read it.

You must've clicked the tab? If so, click it again.

Berzee
07-11-2011, 01:16 PM
Anyone who likes RPS should never equate web-development prowess with reliable computer game journalism. =P

sinister agent
07-11-2011, 01:21 PM
Anyone who likes RPS should never equate web-development prowess with reliable computer game journalism. =P

You're right. The RPS guys are pretty good at web development.

metalangel
07-11-2011, 01:33 PM
They also don't start sentences with "Well,", "And" or "But".

Technical hitches aside, the review is very detailed but doesn't tell much about whether the game is fun. It seems to assume familiarity with CoD, so why not use that to address well known criticisms? How well do the restructured kill streaks work in making life more enjoyable for those who aren't super skilled? How do shotguns work out as a primary weapon? Are the scripted events full of NPCs barging you out of the way like in BF3? The set pieces are amazing but are there any to top MW1's trio of AC130, radiation sickness and sniper infiltration?

Berzee
07-11-2011, 01:43 PM
You're right. The RPS guys are pretty good at web development. Oh, buttons!


They also don't start sentences with "Well,", "And" or "But".

I had to look back...zero pages...to find a counter example. =P Indeed it was the Most Recent Article by one of the four: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/07/byte-vs-brick-week-ending-nov-4/#more-80998

And I'm fine with that!

Your other points, I accept freely. ^_^

Nalano
07-11-2011, 02:59 PM
This review slurped a little too much jizz for my tastes, it felt like reading an interview from a sales rep.

Considering Activision flew a lot of press to a retreat so they could spend days kneading them, and then held their own two-day convention where they let fans drive jeeps in on off-road course, did you expect they'd simply let reviewers choose their own scores?

metalangel
07-11-2011, 05:58 PM
Right on. Likewise, please, gamers, come all the way to Sweden so you can sample the godawful "Operation Guillotine" single player level of Battlefield 3. Have some more beer. This is Inge. She'll be waiting for you in your hotel room. Etc.

Mohorovicic
07-11-2011, 06:08 PM
The single player, meanwhile, rather than being a throwaway companion to the real meat and bones of the game is instead a brilliantly bombastic showcase of set-pieces and action.

You mean singleplayer in previous CoD titles was a throwaway companion to the real meat and bones of the game?

That makes it some amazing throwaway. And some really lean meat and bones.

Kevin
07-11-2011, 07:06 PM
Not really the "maturity" of the story that irked me about Modern Warfare 2. It's more Infinity Ward's attempt to make the story something it's not. I mean, it's a game that's trying to make something approximating social and political commentary (the No Russian level) that's right next to a level where you're shooting a gat gangsta style on a snowmobile while jumping over a gorge the size of Rhode Island. Then there's the pseudo-philosophizing the writers tried to insert into the game that comes off as more obnoxious than thought-provoking.

Which is why I've actually found the Black Ops a bit more palatable: It wholeheartedly embraces what it is, rather than making half-hearted attempts at appealing to "cerebral" literary and art critics.

Fiyenyaa
07-11-2011, 07:06 PM
How did this game get a 5/5?

'Cause the CoD games tend to get these kind of scores?
Why? Who knows.

Nalano
07-11-2011, 07:26 PM
'Cause the CoD games tend to get these kind of scores?
Why? Who knows.

Oh, we know why.

Hensler
07-11-2011, 07:28 PM
Oh. Heister. That's why I don't remember posting this thread.

Anyways, are we having this discussion again? Last week, it was unfair to give Uncharted a low score. Now it's unfair to give Call of Duty a high one. The review is a person's opinion, and lots of people enjoy Call of Duty. If it sucked that much, it wouldn't be a success, regardless of marketing. Some people would give this game a 5/5 or higher if they could. Others, like the PC Gaming Hipsters of RPS, would give it a 0/5. And guess what? They're both right.

Smashbox
07-11-2011, 07:30 PM
Oh. Heister. That's why I don't remember posting this thread.

Anyways, are we having this discussion again? Last week, it was unfair to give Uncharted a low score. Now it's unfair to give Call of Duty a high one. The review is a person's opinion, and lots of people enjoy Call of Duty. If it sucked that much, it wouldn't be a success, regardless of marketing. Some people would give this game a 5/5 or higher if they could. Others, like the PC Gaming Hipsters of RPS, would give it a 0/5. And guess what? They're both right.

"★★★★"
-Smashbox

Tikey
07-11-2011, 07:35 PM
Four stars?
That's too low/high

Megagun
07-11-2011, 07:37 PM
Some people would give this game a 5/5 or higher if they could. Others, like the PC Gaming Hipsters of RPS, would give it a 0/5. And guess what? They're both right.
Now I want to see a review of a game written by Schrödinger's cat.

You are absolutely right, though. Some people will love MW3. Some will hate it. People that like singleplayer campaigns and don't really bother with the multiplayer might love it, yet those that only play the multiplayer might think that it doesn't innovate enough. That's life.

As a sidenote: I've been thinking of some reviewing mechanism that rates different components of games (aesthetics, stability, gameplay, story, dialogue) against others based on some clever elo-like rating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system). Users compare one aspect of a game to the same aspect of another game, and tell the system which game does it better. For example: "the aesthetics of Deus Ex: Human Revolution are better than those of Renegade Ops". Do some nifty mathematics, and we can probably end up with some kind of rating (0 to infinity, rather than 0 to 10) of games based on specific criteria. This allows people that like good dialogues in games to find games that have great dialogues. Corrections have to be made here and there to account for the age of certain games, so that old games don't score massively worse on the 'aesthetics' department (alternatively, filters have to be created so that aesthetics can only be compared per year, rather than overall).

Mohorovicic
07-11-2011, 07:44 PM
Not really the "maturity" of the story that irked me about Modern Warfare 2. It's more Infinity Ward's attempt to make the story something it's not. I mean, it's a game that's trying to make something approximating social and political commentary (the No Russian level) that's right next to a level where you're shooting a gat gangsta style on a snowmobile while jumping over a gorge the size of Rhode Island. Then there's the pseudo-philosophizing the writers tried to insert into the game that comes off as more obnoxious than thought-provoking.

Funny; I never saw No Russian as anything but a cheap shot at controversy to create some buzz around the game. I mean it doesn't even make any sense story-wise, and it's so random it's almost bizarre.

Nalano
07-11-2011, 07:45 PM
and we can probably end up with some kind of rating (0 to infinity, rather than 0 to 10) of games based on specific criteria

That would solve some problems:

"Hey, we got the same score again, but our game was at least 20% better than our last game!"
"Ack! I knew this would happen when we bought all the reviewers call girls two years ago! We've painted ourselves into a corner!"
"Not necessarily! What if we convince them to use a scale to infinity? 120% of infinity is infinity!"
"That... that's brilliant! Quick, slap it on the boxes. INFINITY STARS!"

Megagun
07-11-2011, 08:02 PM
That would solve some problems:

"Hey, we got the same score again, but our game was at least 20% better than our last game!"
"Ack! I knew this would happen when we bought all the reviewers call girls two years ago! We've painted ourselves into a corner!"
"Not necessarily! What if we convince them to use a scale to infinity? 120% of infinity is infinity!"
"That... that's brilliant! Quick, slap it on the boxes. INFINITY STARS!"
Actually, due to technical constraints, it's probably going to be a scale of 0 to something like 2147483647. In this scenario, if your previous game had a score of 2147483640 and your current game is at least 20% better, you'll end up with a new score of around -2147400000 (warning: I didn't do the maths on this!). Which would be slightly unfortunate.

Also: where do I sign up to become a game reviewer of the latest triple-A blockbuster games?

Nalano
07-11-2011, 08:07 PM
Actually, due to technical constraints, it's probably going to be a scale of 0 to something like 2147483647. In this scenario, if your previous game had a score of 2147483640 and your current game is at least 20% better, you'll end up with a new score of around -2147400000 (warning: I didn't do the maths on this!). Which would be slightly unfortunate.

Also: where do I sign up to become a game reviewer of the latest triple-A blockbuster games?

"WHAT? Okay, okay... we can handle this.... I know! Slap on the box: 'Score: LIMIT BREAK!' Also, cancel the hookers. We're gonna have to kill off all the reviewers so we can start a brand new trade mag and hype it up in time for next year's release."

Megagun
07-11-2011, 08:10 PM
"WHAT? Okay, okay... we can handle this.... I know! Slap on the box: 'Score: LIMIT BREAK!' Also, cancel the hookers. We're gonna have to kill off all the reviewers so we can start a brand new trade mag and hype it up in time for next year's release."
Shit. Where can I un-sign-up to become a game reviewer of the latest triple-A blockbuster games?

TillEulenspiegel
07-11-2011, 08:13 PM
Get with the times, man! We're using unsigned 64-bit review scores now. Anything under 1.7x10^19 is crap.

Megagun
07-11-2011, 08:18 PM
Sorry, I don't think Java has any unsigned types (except char and byte?). Does this mean that we can't do any cross-platform reviews now?

acidtestportfolio
07-11-2011, 08:43 PM
battlefield 3 review: 5/10 (great multiplayer, looks and feels decent, single player/co-op are essentially a bunch of pigs with lipsticks and silk dresses on them)

modern warfare 3: 6/10 (singleplayer is going to be a four hour cover shooter, haven't played co-op, feels like a toy, multiplayer is not really going to change)

can the cover shooter FPS genre just implode already, please

db1331
07-11-2011, 08:50 PM
"...dumb, nonsensical and scripted..."

Yup, sounds like a 5/5 to me.

Grizzly
07-11-2011, 08:53 PM
The thing is that people who volunteer to review a game are usually fans of such game, and therefore, give it a score that fits with their 'taste', so to speak. People who aren't fans of the genre might be much more critical, perhaps even unnecisarely so.

vinraith
07-11-2011, 09:30 PM
Isn't this rather like giving the latest big dumb action movie (say, a new Transformers flick) a 100% score? This seems more like a comment on the state of games criticism than anything else.

acidtestportfolio
07-11-2011, 09:32 PM
Isn't this rather like giving the latest big dumb action movie (say, a new Transformers flick) a 100% score? This seems more like a comment on the state of games criticism than anything else.

bear in mind a lot of the reviewers got a lot of nice swag and were holed up in a very nice spa resort to play the game

they're not throwing cash at them, but it's not like things of value weren't given

Unaco
07-11-2011, 09:36 PM
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/11/nov/reviews4.jpg

acidtestportfolio
07-11-2011, 09:39 PM
dumb image macro

i too wish to not improve on things as well

Nalano
07-11-2011, 09:42 PM
"dumb" image macro

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/2011/11/nickelback_detroit_lions_halftime_show_petition.ph p

Best comment: "No, really, they're terrible."

Unaco
07-11-2011, 09:44 PM
Alec Meer worked ceaselessly for 5 days in Paint on that Image (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/04/review-score-controversies-a-guide/) (I assume), and you just straight up call it dumb? It's hardly the most nuanced critique... can you not provide anything constructive?

acidtestportfolio
07-11-2011, 09:46 PM
Alec Meer worked ceaselessly for 5 days in Paint on that Image (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/11/04/review-score-controversies-a-guide/), and you just straight up call it dumb? It's hardly the most nuanced critique... can you not provide anything constructive?

oh, well, alec meer writes here! i don't want him to walk out of his office and stand there glaring at me! such an internet celebrity could melt me into a puddle with one furious gaze from his perfect baby blue internet eyes!

Unaco
07-11-2011, 09:49 PM
Give it a score out of 7.3 at least.

I actually posted the image because this situation sounds like a similar situation, that the image I posted was used to comment upon quite recently. Something of a reversal on that situation, but there was a lot of comment on the RPS article, and I figured some people might get something from the article. I figured the image would be enough to remind people of the article, but realised it might not, so gave the link as well.

db1331
07-11-2011, 09:57 PM
The only reason I want to see reviews for MW3 is to laugh as the SP gets the same criticism as BF3's (short length, overly-scripted, bad AI), but gets no points taken off for it.

Hensler
07-11-2011, 10:08 PM
Huh. I think comparing Modern Warfare and Nickelback may be the best analogy in the history of the Internet.

Jeremy
07-11-2011, 10:17 PM
I generally find the meta-game behind a Call of Duty release far more exciting than the game itself.

Smashbox
07-11-2011, 10:20 PM
Huh. I think comparing Modern Warfare and Nickelback may be the best analogy in the history of the Internet.

Taking it further:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvujgcbaCF8

Nalano
07-11-2011, 10:23 PM
Taking it further:

The dissonance is actually more artistically interesting than either of the two songs.

Taidan
07-11-2011, 11:28 PM
I wouldn't call MechWarrior 3 a 5/5 title. 3.5/5 maybe.

It wasn't terrible as such, it just had neither the impact of MechWarrior 2 nor the fast-paced excellence of MechWarrior 4.

Unaco
07-11-2011, 11:38 PM
I wouldn't call MechWarrior 3 a 5/5 title. 3.5/5 maybe.

It wasn't terrible as such, it just had neither the impact of MechWarrior 2 nor the fast-paced excellence of MechWarrior 4.

It probably had the best campaign of all of the games, and some of the best simulation aspects. I'd rate it equal or slightly below MW2 Mercs, at least equal with MW2, and far and above both MW4s.

Taidan
07-11-2011, 11:47 PM
It probably had the best campaign of all of the games, and some of the best simulation aspects. I'd rate it equal or slightly below MW2 Mercs, at least equal with MW2, and far and above both MW4s.

Y'know, I'm probably a little biased due to the fact that I didn't actually play that much MW3. I'm obviously going to have to go back and give it a proper go.

Drake Sigar
07-11-2011, 11:53 PM
I'd just like to disassociate myself from the rest of you by saying my earlier statement had nothing to do with the review score. Stop talking about the score. Stop.

You're still thinking about it aren't you?

Taidan
08-11-2011, 12:01 AM
I'd just like to disassociate myself from the rest of you by saying my earlier statement had nothing to do with the review score.

Were you being... literal? That's quite the mental image you're putting out there.

SirKicksalot
08-11-2011, 12:48 AM
The only reason I want to see reviews for MW3 is to laugh as the SP gets the same criticism as BF3's (short length, overly-scripted, bad AI), but gets no points taken off for it.

This week I played half of BF3's singleplayer and finished both previous Modern Warfares.
BF3 is UTTER SHIT. It makes me sick only to think about it. It's a miserable experience that tries to imitate Call of Duty and fails really bad. It's not a trainwreck - those are actually fun to witness. It's just a sad little miserable turd left in the rain. It boggles my mind how DICE tries so hard to make a Call of Duty game yet somehow the end result is a failure of biblical proportions. I guess it just proves that few studios can master the art of scripted singleplayer.

Anyone that claims BF3's campaign is as good or better than any MW campaign is an idiot in my book. Shit, even Homefront was better than BF3.

Nalano
08-11-2011, 12:58 AM
Anyone that claims BF3's campaign is as good or better than any MW campaign is an idiot in my book. Shit, even Homefront was better than BF3.

Dude. Claiming the superiority of a MW campaign is like claiming the gold in the Special Olympics.

CuriousOrange
08-11-2011, 01:01 AM
Dude. Claiming the superiority of a MW campaign is like claiming the gold in the Special Olympics.

What, very impressive?

Heister
08-11-2011, 01:11 AM
Dude. Claiming the superiority of a MW campaign is like claiming the gold in the Special Olympics.

You didn't enjoy Modern Warfare?

Overall the sp was pretty good. I really enjoyed this chapter (guess which one?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WCkqmbXMfM

Unaco
08-11-2011, 01:19 AM
What, very impressive?

Totally. And it's not just getting the gold that's impressive... just taking part gets my approval. Those special Olympics people have got some pluck... despite all of their misfortunes, and the obstacles in their way, they do something quite admirable, and productive (they raise millions of dollars each year, along with acceptance and enlightenment on their disabilities). It's quite a positive for them, encouraging social interaction, improving self-esteem and confidence. It improves relationships within families also, with family members encouraged to participate in training with the athlete, giving them a shared activity.

It's also an incredibly positive and healthy thing for them physically... the intellectually disabled, due to insufficient care and understanding and opportunity tend to lead quite sedentary lifestyles, which leads to the obvious problems of obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, etc... combined with the genetic basis of some disabilities, which also carry increased risk of cardiovascular problems and the like, this leads to numerous and widespread physical problems. Participation, training and getting involved is a way for them try to avoid or combat that.

SirKicksalot
08-11-2011, 01:27 AM
Dude. Claiming the superiority of a MW campaign is like claiming the gold in the Special Olympics.

I guess you don't like linear old-school shooters, then. I enjoy running and gunning and COD is one of the few games that does it right.

acidtestportfolio
08-11-2011, 02:02 AM
I guess you don't like linear old-school shooters, then. I enjoy running and gunning and COD is one of the few games that does it right.

call of duty is a game that got the run and gun feel right.

battlefield 3 tried the same thing but the campaign that was produced fell flat on it's face, because battlefield does not do linear stuff well. as a matter of fact, i feel the same way about bad company 2's single player campaign. battlefield is not really all that well known for linear action because the series' strengths are in open-ended half-sandbox half-shooter combat.

sabrage
08-11-2011, 02:27 AM
This thread made me realize that I haven't beaten an FPS campaign (Portal 2 and The Ball don't really count) in well over two years. Who cares? It's a nice bonus mode at most. I play a lot of League of Legends, but I never play the 3v3 map or Dominion, because it's not fun. Doesn't make me enjoy it any less. Honestly, who cares if it sucks? Don't play it, and if that's all your interested in, don't buy it.

Mohorovicic
08-11-2011, 07:29 AM
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/11/nov/reviews4.jpg

Welp, I guess it's time to call it a life. Truly further discussion on any subject is meaningless, so shall we all just head home chaps? Anyone seen my hat?

Nalano
08-11-2011, 07:43 AM
What, very impressive?

Sure, if you're developmentally disabled.

Mohorovicic
08-11-2011, 07:58 AM
developmentally disabled.

I don't think words work that way

Nalano
08-11-2011, 08:04 AM
I don't think words work that way

Political correctness has changed the terminology more than once.

If you would prefer, in roughly reverse chronological order:

Intellectual disability
Mental retardation
Feeble-mindedness
Mongolism
Idiocy
Cretinism

Drake Sigar
08-11-2011, 08:06 AM
I don't think words work that way
Shhh, I'm enjoying my morning cup of Nalano.

Nalano
08-11-2011, 08:09 AM
Shhh, I'm enjoying my morning cup of Nalano.

I'd get the decaf, myself.

TailSwallower
08-11-2011, 08:16 AM
As for the topic at hand, Dtoid just posted their review (http://www.destructoid.com/review-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-215404.phtml)... Most of it reads like a press release. 9.5/10, for no particular reason that I saw mentioned, but admittedly I just skimmed over most of it because it seemed more like a shopping list of features than anything. Maybe they're saving the 10/10 for MW4?

Capt. Eduardo del Mango
08-11-2011, 10:34 AM
Dude. Claiming the superiority of a MW campaign is like claiming the gold in the Special Olympics.

Which, at the last Special Olympics in 2011, would have involved running the 100m sprint in less than 11.61 seconds.

PS MW singleplayer sucks, fiercely. Like Virtua Cop but without the cool plastic gun.

metalangel
08-11-2011, 10:43 AM
8/10gamer gives it... 8/10.

link (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-08-call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-review)

The comments are raging with accusations of them being fag nooblars for daring to give it only an 8.

Grizzly
08-11-2011, 11:21 AM
That review had me more interested in CoDMW3 then anything has, really.

Taidan
08-11-2011, 11:57 AM
Okay, let's go back into "drawing analogies with film" territory. (It's old, but hey! It works. Except for when it doesn't.)

There are certain people in this world that like movies like "The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift", and "Step Up 2: The Streets", and don't "get" movies that don't have explosions (for "The Guys") or snogging and dancing (for "The Gals".) (Outrageous sexism? Maybe. But it's also the way Hollywood, and for the most part also real life works, so get over it.)

On the other hand, there are certain people in the world who consider themselves true lovers and connoisseurs of film, who would look down on such people as whom would keep Michael Bay employed, and instead proclaim that the works of Andrei Tarkovsky and Stanley Kubrick are among the pinnacle of human artistry, and much more worthy of your time.

Both groups of people are completely in the right, of course, just as both groups of people are also as wrong as it is possible to be.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is pretty much in the same class as the former group of movies I mentioned. It's dumb, but it's unpretentious. It doesn't aim very high, but hit hits all of the marks it's aiming to. It doesn't innovate in any way at all, and it's been done to death in the past, but it's also fun. (In a horrible, mindless way no less, but fun all the same.)

It's the genre movie of the gaming world. And just like "The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift" and "Step Up 2: The Streets", it achieves everything it sets out to achieve, (Unlike a lot of more ambitious, "serious" media) and its intended audience love it to bits.

As such, if you're the type of twit who is going to assign a meaningless, arbitrary bit of mathematics to the end of your opinion, (Or who is going to want to see that sort of thing) then 5/5 is indisputably the correct score for Modern Warfare 3.

On a personal note, while I look down my nose at the sort of mindless cretins who buy those games, I always look forward to when my CoD-loving friends finish with the latest title and lend me the XBox versions, and I love every second of them while they last. Yes, I'm an elitist snob and a hypocrite.

**Edit**

And just to clarify further. Yes, I am admitting that I watched Step Up 2 at the cinema, and that I loved every second of it.

Lukasz
08-11-2011, 12:16 PM
Now I want to see a review of a game written by Schrödinger's cat.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/newuploads/24331.gif

thesisko
08-11-2011, 12:20 PM
Except those two mentioned films have aggregated review scores of 50 and 46, while MW3 has 90.
Would you want film critics to rate movies based on how much they think average Joe will like it?

Timeless classics would be slammed with 2/5 scores because the plot is "too complex" and "inaccessible" for the average moviegoer, while "Transformers 3" would get 5/5.

Unaco
08-11-2011, 12:33 PM
Welp, I guess it's time to call it a life. Truly further discussion on any subject is meaningless, so shall we all just head home chaps? Anyone seen my hat?

1 picture, designed to engender discussion and conversation and debate? And you see that as the end of the discussion? Fair enough... we'll carry on without you. Doubt you'll be missed.

Taidan
08-11-2011, 12:53 PM
Except those two mentioned films have aggregated review scores of 50 and 46, while MW3 has 90.
Would you want film critics to rate movies based on how much they think average Joe will like it?

Why wouldn't some film critics rate movies on how much they think "average Joe" will like it? For a lot of them, their entire job is to recommend a film to "average Joe"!

Let's not forget that different reviewers will be judging their subject from entirely different perspectives, depending on exactly who their employer is and who the target audience is.

The problem we're seeing with those numbers you've posted from various critics in the movie world (apart from the whole "Elephant in the Room" of that fact that these numbers are assigned in an entirely arbitrary way anyway) is that some of those reviewers are looking at these films through the eyes of the stereotypical "Jaded, Cynical Professional", and that others are judging these films through the lens of the "Serious Art Critic".

Seeing that these two films I've mentioned have absolutely no pretensions to being serious works of art, and are meant as nothing more than throwaway entertainment, I think we can empirically dismiss their reviews (And most critical review as a whole) as pointless drivel.

When you go see a movie like "The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift", you don't go to to learn something important about the human condition, you go to watch people driving cars around and ogle girls wearing skimpy clothing.

You don't walk into something like "Step Up 2: The Streets" expecting to see some great technical aspect of film-making. You go to watch some meticulous dance routines interspersed by a classical framework of romance.

Likewise, you don't play "Modern Warfare 3" to mentally test yourself, or experience a great challenge of navigation. You play to shoot funny-lookin' foreigners in the face, while riding on a jeep that's just missed a collision with the recently detached bouncing wing of a jetliner by about 0.5mm, while something somewhere explodes.

As such, all three of those titles I just named represent something close to the purest form of perfection in whatever it is that that they're trying to achieve. 5/5, every time!

jp0249107
08-11-2011, 01:00 PM
Personally, I'm sad to see one of my favorite franchises from my youth go down the drain. It just isn't what it used to be. Playing those old COD's reminds me of Band of Brothers. While I'm not saying they should do WW2 all the time, you can still transfer that epic set piece feeling with fellow soldiers into a different era. Playing the Modern Warfare's now feels like a Michael Bay commercial. I loved the battles in the streets with the US military around a certain important building but other than that....meh....

But reasonably looking at it...who cares? If people like it then they should give the score they feel it deserves. There are so many reviewers now that I'm sure there is a review by someone who isn't familiar with the games that would be more honest or critical about certain features. I feel for the nay-sayers though, the COD culture in the multiplayer makes me sick...I bought MW1 on steam and it's a steaming pile compared to most other multiplayer experiences; but that's just my opinion and that's how people should take it, it's not fact. If I've got a problem with COD I can take my money elsewhere (and I have..BF3, RO2, Skyrim).

thesisko
08-11-2011, 01:19 PM
As such, all three of those titles I just named represent something close to the purest form of perfection in whatever it is that that they're trying to achieve. 5/5, every time!

A couple of mainstream critics giving "Transformers 3" a 5/5 because of cool explosions and Megan Fox's cleavage is fine. The entire critic core disregarding the non-existant plot, atrocious writing and poor acting would not be fine.

If I want the opinion of Average Joe, I can ask a guy on the street or check IMDB ratings. I expect professional criticism to be done by men and women with vastly more knowledge and higher expectations than myself, why else should I bother with their opinion?

Althea
08-11-2011, 01:24 PM
A couple of mainstream critics giving "Transformers 3" a 5/5 because of cool explosions and Megan Fox's cleavage is fine.
Megan Fox wasn't in 3 ;)

thesisko
08-11-2011, 01:27 PM
Megan Fox wasn't in 3 ;)
Right, only 4.5/5 then :P

soldant
08-11-2011, 01:44 PM
As such, all three of those titles I just named represent something close to the purest form of perfection in whatever it is that that they're trying to achieve. 5/5, every time!
I think the issue a lot of people are having with the 5/5 every time thing is that the series isn't doing anything new at all, it's the same sequence of set pieces with slightly different storylines. If I do something new and interesting I should get a 5/5. If I repeat the same thing again and again, I should get a 4/5 so long as everything is enjoyable, or 3/5 if it's just the same thing.

I once trained a student dispatcher who complained that I didn't heap praise on them after every successful job they logged. I patiently explained to them that this was their 14th shift in training, their assessment was in 2 shifts, and I wasn't going to give them a medal for every single routine job they put through. I think the same thing should apply to gaming; yet another sequel following in the footsteps of the previous games shouldn't equate to an auto-win. There's no improvement.

Taidan
08-11-2011, 01:49 PM
A couple of mainstream critics giving "Transformers 3" a 5/5 because of cool explosions and Megan Fox's cleavage is fine. The entire critic core disregarding the non-existant plot, atrocious writing and poor acting would not be fine.

You're still following with the fallacy that you can somehow sum up an entirely subjective quality with a single, absolute number.

I think that any mainstream film critic with integrity would be able to see that the lack of a plot, and the poor writing and acting do not detract from "Transformers 3" in the least. (Somehow making giant transforming robots kinda boring did, though) Marking it down (arbitrary marks, ofc.) for those things would be like marking down Ice Cream at a restaurant for being served cold.

I would expect to see it remarked on in review the text, of course. Those things shouldn't be ignored, and when they are done well they should be applauded and rewarded, but why punish and detract for things that aren't even being actively pursued by the creators?

Bearing in mind the target audience is most important, too. I wouldn't expect "Magazine for People who like Acting Monthly" to judge Transformers 3 highly. On the flipside, "Magazine for dumb f**ks with little-to-no attention span" (ie. pretty much the entirety of the mainstream press that's specifically aimed at men below the age of 30.) would be probably inclined to give the film a higher score. (Not a 5/5 for Transformers 3, though.)

Taidan
08-11-2011, 01:58 PM
I think the issue a lot of people are having with the 5/5 every time thing is that the series isn't doing anything new at all, it's the same sequence of set pieces with slightly different storylines. If I do something new and interesting I should get a 5/5. If I repeat the same thing again and again, I should get a 4/5 so long as everything is enjoyable, or 3/5 if it's just the same thing.

The thing is with that particular series (Modern Warfare) is that it doesn't need to do anything new. It does what it does pretty well, which is pretty much lead you by the nose through a barely interactive action movie, while asking you to repeatedly place a crosshair over a representation of a man, then click the mouse. (It's the old "All games have 10 seconds of gameplay" theory, boiled down to the bare essentials.)

It just needs to do what it did last time, only BIGGER! More explosions! Two near misses with the wing of a detached plane instead of just one! More easily recognisable landmarks trashed! etc.

Kadayi
08-11-2011, 02:10 PM
A large part of a reviewers assessment of a game is always going to come down to how well it functions (where as gamers tend to review on storyline a lot of the time). Plain truth of the matter is both Activision & EA generally ship playable product (because they QA everything to a high degree), which is why their games generally score better than those of other developer/publishers (RAGE is a fine example of decentish game dragged down by bad launch state).

I'm not surprised MW3 is getting decent reviews, because there's no way Activision would ship a lacklustre product when it comes to their biggest franchise.

pakoito
08-11-2011, 02:27 PM
Recycling assets from CoD4 1:1 -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5dsOn06w1s

Heister
08-11-2011, 02:53 PM
Recycling assets from CoD4 1:1 -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5dsOn06w1s

That guy would go mad if he knew what engine they used.

pakoito
08-11-2011, 03:05 PM
That guy would go mad if he knew what engine they used.50M$ budget, 2 years devtime and you get same engine, same assets, for 70€ (+ DLC or Elite) a year for 5 years.

acidtestportfolio
08-11-2011, 04:11 PM
50M$ budget, 2 years devtime and you get same engine, same assets, for 70€ (+ DLC or Elite) a year for 5 years.

i'd say it takes $20 million to make this, tops

the rest of the budget is blown on kitten smuggling and snorting

metalangel
08-11-2011, 04:27 PM
I thought you huffed kittens?

SirKicksalot
08-11-2011, 04:47 PM
Recycling assets from CoD4 1:1 -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5dsOn06w1s

I'm still mad at Valve for recycling their sound library and assets over and over again. It's still better than what Monolith used to do.

Looks like the recent WB layoffs killed Monolith, btw.

Lukasz
08-11-2011, 04:56 PM
Looks like the recent WB layoffs killed Monolith, btw.
source please?

SirKicksalot
08-11-2011, 05:32 PM
A former CM at Monolith (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32427477&postcount=40)

Jeremy
08-11-2011, 05:54 PM
Welp, I guess it's time to call it a life. Truly further discussion on any subject is meaningless, so shall we all just head home chaps? Anyone seen my hat?

I don't think anyone is saying that a lack of discourse is valuable to the medium, but... well let me ask this question. In your experience, when people disagree about a game, how often does the discussion stay on the topic of discussing the pros and cons of said game? The conversation usually goes a few directions.

1) Anyone that likes <insert game here> is a consoletard/idiot/juvenile, and can't appreciate a "real" game
2) This game isn't an RPG/is an RPG which ends up going back to personal attacks(see #1)
3) Game is dumbed down v. intelligently streamlined and ends up back to personal attacks (see #1)
or 4) Avoid all pretenses and just go for personal attacks

I'm all about intelligent discussion on the merits of a game or lack thereof, but generally people are so emotionally tied to their opinion that they lose any ability to reason.

metalangel
08-11-2011, 06:00 PM
That litttle chart isn't about stopping discussion of games altogether so much as stopping people arguing about the score it got. Eurogamer is known as 8/10gamer for a reason: they give all their games 8/10* and all the comments threads are devoted to arguing about this and presenting their own personal opinion/Metacritic as crushing counterpoint.

*not everything, but rather a lot of things.

Mohorovicic
08-11-2011, 06:55 PM
1) Anyone that likes <insert game here> is a consoletard/idiot/juvenile, and can't appreciate a "real" game
2) This game isn't an RPG/is an RPG which ends up going back to personal attacks(see #1)
3) Game is dumbed down v. intelligently streamlined and ends up back to personal attacks (see #1)
or 4) Avoid all pretenses and just go for personal attacks

That's what I'm talking about, fuck year!

Alex Bakke
08-11-2011, 07:00 PM
They also don't start sentences with "Well,", "And" or "But".


Starting a sentence with 'and' is perfectly fine. It's a silly rule introduced by primary school teachers who don't want children to write "I went to the shop. And then I ate an ice cream. And then I went to the park. And then I did X. And then I did Y."

metalangel
08-11-2011, 07:20 PM
It's jarring to read, and there are many, many better ways to start a sentence. If you're an RPS writer or someone else pulling off clever wordplay then you can just about get away with it but otherwise, as per your example, it smacks of a nine year old's "essay" on wot he done over the weekend.

Unaco
08-11-2011, 07:35 PM
So, what you're saying is it's not a definite rule against starting a sentence with a conjunction, but an arbitrary one. But, is most of language not arbitrary rules? For are not words and letters nought but abstract concepts, the understanding of which can only come through the education of rules. Or do you claim that there are definite, concrete rules to the language.

Yet, I see it as an issue of how English is used, and how it is supposed to be, in that, sometimes, a full stop is required in written English to drive home a point. And then an afterthought, such as this, has more impact as a sentence by itself, rather than being conjoined.

P.S. Special Gold star for anyone who can see what I did there.

Nalano
08-11-2011, 07:37 PM
So, what you're saying is it's not a definite rule against starting a sentence with a conjunction, but an arbitrary one. But, is most of language not arbitrary rules? For are not words and letters nought but abstract concepts, the understanding of which can only come through the education of rules. Or do you claim that there are definite, concrete rules to the language.

Yet, I see it as an issue of how English is used, and how it is supposed to be, in that, sometimes, a full stop is required in written English to drive home a point. And then an afterthought, such as this, has more impact as a sentence by itself, rather than being conjoined.

P.S. Special Gold star for anyone who can see what I did there.

I c wut u did ther.

metalangel
08-11-2011, 08:07 PM
Not so much a gold star as a frowny face and a SEE ME in red pen.

Tams80
08-11-2011, 11:37 PM
"...there's nothing in MW3 that should surprise anyone that's played any of the previous games"

This alone raises the question as to why it got 5/5. This is why full marks means nothing now. A good game that brings little new, but looks great, plays great etc. still shouldn't get full marks. 4/5 at best or lack of originality. This applies to more than just COD; it applies to any game.

Not that I'd give MW3 4/5.

Heister
09-11-2011, 12:00 AM
"...there's nothing in MW3 that should surprise anyone that's played any of the previous games"

This alone raises the question as to why it got 5/5. This is why full marks means nothing now. A good game that brings little new, but looks great, plays great etc. still shouldn't get full marks. 4/5 at best or lack of originality. This applies to more than just COD; it applies to any game.

Not that I'd give MW3 4/5.

I have to disagree with you. If it's a good game that looks great and plays great then shouldn't it get full marks? I love innovation as much as the next gamer, but when it comes down to it, all I really want is a good game that looks great and most importantly plays great.

SirKicksalot
09-11-2011, 12:02 AM
Since when are gamers so obsessed by innovation anyway?

And when a Cryostasis or a Bulletstorm comes along and brings something fresh to the table it bombs. Oh well.

pakoito
09-11-2011, 12:12 AM
I have to disagree with you. If it's a good game that looks great and plays great then shouldn't it get full marks? I love innovation as much as the next gamer, but when it comes down to it, all I really want is a good game that looks great and most importantly plays great.All AAA look great and play great, so all AAA get 9s and 10s. That's the reason why most journos are defamed this days, score scale seems to start at 8.

acidtestportfolio
09-11-2011, 04:28 AM
Since when are gamers so obsessed by innovation anyway?

And when a Cryostasis or a Bulletstorm comes along and brings something fresh to the table it bombs. Oh well.

gamers want a fresh take on things that sticks close to the genre

something that is recognizable yet unique and fun

like what defense grid did for desktop tower defense or what quake did for doom

soldant
09-11-2011, 04:31 AM
what quake did for doom
I think that's a bad example, since Quake went to full 3D geometry with a brand new engine. That's a massive leap over the sector and sprite-based Doom engine.

sabrage
09-11-2011, 04:42 AM
Desktop Tower Defense came from Warcraft 3 mods, which started with a Blizzard-made Starcraft mod. I have no idea what this has to do with MW3.

acidtestportfolio
09-11-2011, 04:43 AM
I think that's a bad example, since Quake went to full 3D geometry with a brand new engine. That's a massive leap over the sector and sprite-based Doom engine.

no, it's a great example for what i am talking about

soldant
09-11-2011, 05:34 AM
no, it's a great example for what i am talking about
You said you want something that's recognisable, yet unique and fun.

Quake and Doom are entirely different save for the fact that they're both FPS games. That's their only common link: shoot things in first person perspective to reach end of level. By such a loose criteria you might as well pick any game and call it a success.

Mohorovicic
09-11-2011, 06:31 AM
I think that's a bad example, since Quake went to full 3D geometry with a brand new engine. That's a massive leap over the sector and sprite-based Doom engine.

And yet they play almost exactly the same.

soldant
09-11-2011, 07:25 AM
And yet they play almost exactly the same.
So did pretty much every other FPS game from that period. I think the line can still be drawn though, if only because we stopped using "Doom clone" and took up "Quake clone" instead.

It wasn't really until Half Life that the raw FPS really changed too much. Even then, Half Life is still linear as a line for the most part.

DigitalSignalX
09-11-2011, 07:31 AM
TotalBiscuits WTF is up for MW3 (http://youtu.be/4tPNUhtOVLM), he rips it up pretty bad because of the lack of FOV and godmode kill streak unlocks.

"Modern Warfare 3 on PC is GASH." rofl.

deano2099
09-11-2011, 12:37 PM
It's jarring to read

That's the point. You use it when you want to break the flow. When you want to jar a reader. That's why it's a useful too when in the hands of a good writer. It can be over-used (and I have a tendency to do that) but used well it can really help with the pacing of text. You might think you want everything you read to be as accessible and flowing as possible, but you don't. If you get something like that you'll likely think it's boring. It's so easy to read the mind wonders and you don't engage with the text.

Starting sentences with 'And' is just another way to make your writing interesting. It's in the same box as using different lengths of sentences, elegant variation and so forth.

Anyways, to game review scores, if a game like MW3 is to be judged on the basis of being throwaway Bay-esque entertainment, should it also not be judged on the basis of being a AAA title with crap-loads of money thrown at it?

Or in other words, if we're saying we won't criticise it for not being inventive, different or interesting as that's not what's expected, should we also not reward it for being polished and fully-featured as that's also expected? Surely then it should be marked on how it compares to other AAA shooters and it's own predecessors?

Mohorovicic
09-11-2011, 02:20 PM
So did pretty much every other FPS game from that period. I think the line can still be drawn though, if only because we stopped using "Doom clone" and took up "Quake clone" instead.

It wasn't really until Half Life that the raw FPS really changed too much. Even then, Half Life is still linear as a line for the most part.

Dude, are you even trying or are just writing words?

Heister
09-11-2011, 03:06 PM
Is it unusual for Activision to not send out pc copies/codes for sites to review before release? PCGamer did get a copy yesterday but it was for the 360. http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/08/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-is-out-pc-gamer-review-delayed/

acidtestportfolio
09-11-2011, 04:54 PM
Is it unusual for Activision to not send out pc copies/codes for sites to review before release? PCGamer did get a copy yesterday but it was for the 360. http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/08/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-is-out-pc-gamer-review-delayed/

activision wanted a good reception for the initial reviews before anyone who might be more critical towards the game got their hands on it, so they cherry picked their reviewers

Unaco
09-11-2011, 05:10 PM
Seems to be the norm with these big shooters. BattleField 3 did the same... sending out 360 Copies to PC publications, sending them out late/close to release. They even sent out that questionnaire to prospective reviewers asking them "Are you a fan of Battlefield games? Have you reviewed them before? What score did you give them? Did you like Call of Duty? Are you a fan of BF? Are you a fan of CoD?"... Basically sounding reviewers out to determine if they'd have a favourable bias towards or against BattleField.

Althea
09-11-2011, 05:27 PM
They even sent out that questionnaire to prospective reviewers asking them "Are you a fan of Battlefield games? Have you reviewed them before? What score did you give them? Did you like Call of Duty? Are you a fan of BF? Are you a fan of CoD?"... Basically sounding reviewers out to determine if they'd have a favourable bias towards or against BattleField.
But, of course, it was quickly redacted and labelled as a mistake. Whether it truly was or not, we don't know.

acidtestportfolio
09-11-2011, 05:29 PM
Seems to be the norm with these big shooters. BattleField 3 did the same... sending out 360 Copies to PC publications, sending them out late/close to release. They even sent out that questionnaire to prospective reviewers asking them "Are you a fan of Battlefield games? Have you reviewed them before? What score did you give them? Did you like Call of Duty? Are you a fan of BF? Are you a fan of CoD?"... Basically sounding reviewers out to determine if they'd have a favourable bias towards or against BattleField.

"oh, no, we're not insecure about our 'realistic' FPS cover shooters that are mostly rubbish and have no real substance except one game sounds and looks great and another has brand recognizance!"

Unaco
09-11-2011, 05:33 PM
But, of course, it was quickly redacted and labelled as a mistake. Whether it truly was or not, we don't know.

It was quickly redacted and labelled a mistake because some of the publications that received the questions started running articles on them.

soldant
10-11-2011, 12:47 AM
Dude, are you even trying or are just writing words?

Maybe if you actually brought up a valid point (or any point), I might be able to respond in a more meaningful way.

You said that Quake and Doom play almost exactly the same. Apart from the obvious 3D differences, the same could be said for most of the other FPS titles of the time simply because people tend to copy what works well. Hence the terms "Doom/Quake Clone". It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Nalano
10-11-2011, 01:56 AM
Maybe if you actually brought up a valid point (or any point), I might be able to respond in a more meaningful way.

You said that Quake and Doom play almost exactly the same. Apart from the obvious 3D differences, the same could be said for most of the other FPS titles of the time simply because people tend to copy what works well. Hence the terms "Doom/Quake Clone". It's not a hard concept to grasp.

Well, I think he's wrong in using a bad example, as he is (and you are) conflating technical innovation for gameplay progression, but his point is valid if he shifts over to when FPS engines started being used for "hybrid" games - 1998 gave us Thief, Half-Life and Rainbow Six, each of which offered interesting departures from "kill everybody in the room, find the key" gameplay while being similar enough in core mechanics to be familiar to FPS gamers.

That being said, now that I'm thinking about it, having a true 3D engine instead of 2.5D like id and 3DRealms had be using up until that point does make a big difference in gameplay, what with actually having to aim on a plane, not just an axis.

soldant
10-11-2011, 03:02 AM
but his point is valid if he shifts over to when FPS engines started being used for "hybrid" games - 1998 gave us Thief, Half-Life and Rainbow Six, each of which offered interesting departures from "kill everybody in the room, find the key" gameplay while being similar enough in core mechanics to be familiar to FPS gamers.
I didn't say "all", I said "most", and Half Life is pretty much just a shooter with a reasonable storyline. It's still a linear progression and included setpieces that people complain about these days. The real innovation in my opinion was the use of friendly AI and scripted sequences. Actually if I recall I specifically mentioned Half Life as a bit of a watershed for FPS progression.

I know that games like Thief and Deus Ex ended up doing something different but I never intended to lump them into the same category. Thief and Deus Ex (and similar) weren't called Quake/Doom clones or anywhere near to it.


That being said, now that I'm thinking about it, having a true 3D engine instead of 2.5D like id and 3DRealms had be using up until that point does make a big difference in gameplay, what with actually having to aim on a plane, not just an axis.
My point exactly. Even though Doom and the sector-based engines did have height considerations it was largely unimportant; the game would auto-aim and there were no true floating platforms like we ended up getting with Quake. Level design changed quite a bit with the advent of true 3D spaces. Quake's gameplay diverged a fair bit by having true 3D geometry, if only for the change in level design, monster placement, and requirement for mouse aiming, even if at the very core they're still switch/key hunts with the intention of genocide for anything living in the game world.

I'd say the "recognisable but unique and fun" line that I was originally responding to doesn't match up with Quake and Doom. Doom and Duke3D maybe, but not a 2.5D vs 3D engine.

Nalano
10-11-2011, 03:16 AM
I didn't say "all", I said "most", and Half Life is pretty much just a shooter with a reasonable storyline. It's still a linear progression and included setpieces that people complain about these days. The real innovation in my opinion was the use of friendly AI and scripted sequences. Actually if I recall I specifically mentioned Half Life as a bit of a watershed for FPS progression.

I'm not disagreeing with you, and HL is indeed, by today's standards, your bog-standard linear shooter. But before then, I don't remember many enemies that did more than make a beeline to you - meanwhile HL marines would peek behind cover, and if you took cover, they'd lob grenades.

SirKicksalot
10-11-2011, 03:32 AM
Was Quake 2 the first shooter that had connected levels? As in when you got to the end of the level you didn't get a stats page or a button to press or whatever else they had before, but you moved to a section that was logically connected to the previous one.

Wizardry
10-11-2011, 04:03 AM
Was Quake 2 the first shooter that had connected levels? As in when you got to the end of the level you didn't get a stats page or a button to press or whatever else they had before, but you moved to a section that was logically connected to the previous one.
I hate mentioning it in a thread about FPSs, because you don't really shoot people with guns as such (there are spells), but with the mentioning of games like Thief, System Shock 2, Deus Ex and the like I think it's only fair to mention Ultima Underworld, which had properly connected levels as you just mentioned, lighting considerations for enemy AI, stealthing mechanics, physics, proper elevation, slanted walls, swimming and, importantly, jumping, before Wolfenstein 3D was even released.

The way I see it, the whole Looking Glass Studios line of FPSs descended from that very game. Quake 2 and Half-Life very much sat in the Doom camp, but with Half-Life being entirely linear. I'm not sure when the two started crossing over (with games like BioShock as the result). It would be interesting to pinpoint that. Perhaps something like Strife from '96?

EDIT: You could even go fishing!

vinraith
10-11-2011, 04:07 AM
Ultima Underworld was the forerunner of an incredible spectrum of games, really. In addition to everything Wizardry just said, it's pretty obviously the direct inspiration for the entire Elder Scrolls series.

Mohorovicic
10-11-2011, 09:27 AM
You said that Quake and Doom play almost exactly the same. Apart from the obvious 3D differences, the same could be said for most of the other FPS titles of the time simply because people tend to copy what works well. Hence the terms "Doom/Quake Clone". It's not a hard concept to grasp.

First you claimed that Quake was a "massive leap" over Doom, then said that they play exactly the same, and finally you ended with "Half Life had linear levels" which had nothing to do with anything.

I don't speak contradiction and random, so yeah, it's pretty hard for me to follow.

soldant
10-11-2011, 09:34 AM
First you claimed that Quake was a "massive leap" over Doom, then said that they play exactly the same, and finally you ended with "Half Life had linear levels" which had nothing to do with anything.
Um, you said they play "almost exactly the same":


And yet they play almost exactly the same.

I said that if you're going to go down that path you might as well say that all FPS games play the same. They have similar core elements but the addition of true 3D geometry creates a pretty big divide between the two.

I was just commenting that the basics of FPS games hadn't really changed much but that doesn't make them play exactly the same. I mentioned Half Life because even though it made a good job at hiding it, the core element is still switch/key hunt in a linear progression, just highlighting how well disguised it is.

Alternatively I could be snide like you and make a snippy comment about comprehension, but I'd much rather take the time to explain my post.

Mohorovicic
10-11-2011, 09:46 AM
Um, you said they play "almost exactly the same"

Yes.


I said that if you're going to go down that path you might as well say that all FPS games play the same.You said it, yes. Minus the "If you're going to down that path" part.


They have similar core elements but the addition of true 3D geometry creates a pretty big divide between the two.No it does not, because it matters little if you're killing baddies on the first or third floor. Unless it's like Descent with full 3D movement.


I was just commenting that the basics of FPS games hadn't really changed much but that doesn't make them play exactly the same.Read first quote in this post again.


Alternatively I could be snide like you and make a snippy comment about comprehension, but I'd much rather take the time to explain my post.
It's not a hard concept to graspYou need a coffee or five.

Althea
10-11-2011, 09:50 AM
I've not played MW3, but I thought I'd offer what little I found out from my dad last night for those still interested in buying an overpriced phone-in.

Basically, he is enjoying it but called it "so-so", and he also said he feels it's a bit of a step backwards from Black Ops. I didn't get much more out of him than that due to a bad phone connection and what have you, but it sounds to me like Black Ops might still be considered the high-point of the series.

Mohorovicic
10-11-2011, 09:55 AM
Black Ops is considered the high-point of the series?

Nalano
10-11-2011, 09:58 AM
Black Ops is considered the high-point of the series?

And here I thought it was CoD4.

thesisko
10-11-2011, 10:06 AM
My point exactly. Even though Doom and the sector-based engines did have height considerations it was largely unimportant; the game would auto-aim and there were no true floating platforms like we ended up getting with Quake. Level design changed quite a bit with the advent of true 3D spaces. Quake's gameplay diverged a fair bit by having true 3D geometry, if only for the change in level design, monster placement, and requirement for mouse aiming

Quake's default control scheme was keyboard. Vertical mouselook and manual aim could only be set via console commands. The "fast-paced shooter" gameplay isn't really how Quake was originally designed to be played. Even movement speed is slow unless you toggle "always run". Play Quake on default settings and it's a slow-ass shooter with autoaim.

soldant
10-11-2011, 10:51 AM
You said it, yes. Minus the "If you're going to down that path" part.
I said core aspects of FPS games are similar but there is still a clear definition between various titles, using the specific example of Doom and Quake.


No it does not, because it matters little if you're killing baddies on the first or third floor. Unless it's like Descent with full 3D movement.
Yes, because a sector-based map has exactly the same level design possibilities as a full 3D environment. Aiming in Half Life is identical to Wolfenstein 3D. Actually, we should have all used tile-based engines like Wolf3D because apparently it makes no difference. Every FPS is clearly identical because you shoot people.

And you accuse me of not making sense?


Quake's default control scheme was keyboard. Vertical mouselook and manual aim could only be set via console commands.
I know, but it still evolved into the mouselook shooter and made 3D level geometry an integral part of FPS level design (Underworld notwithstanding). We moved on from sector-based engines after that. There are more possibilities for level design in a true 3D environment not to mention new gameplay elements such as more realistic physics. Grenades and the like are largely useless in sector engines (DN3D pipebombs were pretty crap, and they're probably the best of the lot), but far more useful in true 3D environments with a greater scope of design.

Heister
10-11-2011, 11:51 PM
PCGamer review http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/10/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-review/

"Verdict
A simple formula, finely polished. Despite a few lapses in judgement, Modern Warfare 3 is a fun adventure."

SirKicksalot
11-11-2011, 12:02 AM
79 eh? I suppose their integrity would have been ruined if they gave it an 80. FFS

Tams80
11-11-2011, 12:54 AM
Would a 4, or even 4.5+ be good enough for you? There is still room for such games to get good scores.

deano2099
11-11-2011, 02:11 AM
79 eh? I suppose their integrity would have been ruined if they gave it an 80. FFS
I love statements like this as the encompass:

"Why not give it one extra percent, it's not like it matters"

and

"How dare they only give it 79 and not 80!"

Nalano
11-11-2011, 02:33 AM
PCGamer review http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/11/10/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-3-review/

"Verdict
A simple formula, finely polished. Despite a few lapses in judgement, Modern Warfare 3 is a fun adventure."

On yet another "No Russian"-type scene in the campaign:


It’s crude, leering, pathetic, terribly written, and a cynical attempt to court headlines. I walked towards my family with the camera pointed in the opposite direction, killing us all while I filmed the side of a phonebox.However dumb BF3's campaign was, it didn't have a moment like that.

SirKicksalot
11-11-2011, 02:51 AM
I love statements like this as the encompass:

"Why not give it one extra percent, it's not like it matters"




I think it's retarded how one extra percent makes the difference between green and yellow, positive and mixed on certain aggregators.


On yet another "No Russian"-type scene in the campaign:

However dumb BF3's campaign was, it didn't have a moment like that.

It's not a No Russian, it's just a poorly executed cutscene that sticks out. No Russian, cynical or not, was a pretty good level IMO. I enjoyed walking through the airport, mowing down crowds and then fighting the special forces. I'm a simple man, what can I say? MW3 revisits No Russian and adds an interesting twist.

Nalano
11-11-2011, 03:16 AM
No Russian, cynical or not, was a pretty good level IMO.

hahahahano

SirKicksalot
11-11-2011, 03:30 AM
At least I gave a reason why I like it. To which I can add that I don't give a shit that it's intended to create controversy. It entertained me so it's good, as opposed to MW3's crappy equivalent.

Mohorovicic
11-11-2011, 07:11 AM
Well, No Russian in MW2 is complete idiocy story-wise(or even common sense-wise) but it can be skipped alltogether, which I always did for the very reason.

Can you skip the MW3 equivalent? Or does it actually make sense?

Nalano
11-11-2011, 07:21 AM
Can you skip the MW3 equivalent?

According to the review, yes you can.

Taidan
11-11-2011, 02:56 PM
At least I gave a reason why I like it. To which I can add that I don't give a shit that it's intended to create controversy. It entertained me so it's good, as opposed to MW3's crappy equivalent.

I kinda almost enjoyed that level too, up until the point it ended. It was quite fun walking around, unloading ammo just above the heads of the crowd, or just in front of and just behind people, without actually shooting anybody.

As it is though, I think it's one of the biggest missed opportunities in gaming. There should have been some payoff or reward for making it look like you were participating, but not actually killing anyone, and maybe even a chance to stealthily save some lives and get away with it.

As it was, it all turned out to be nothing but a barely interactive cut-scene with no consequences for your actions whatsoever. Boo. :(

Citruspunch
15-11-2011, 10:04 PM
it's a fair bet that MW3 is going to be the last COD to hit PC. The signs seem self evident

huge console userbase of players vs smaller pc user base
pain in the ass to develop for such a varied 'platform' given vid cards alone.
hacks will happen - just 4 hours for mw3
Elite wont happen worth a damn.

Thoughts?

Nalano
15-11-2011, 10:18 PM
it's a fair bet that MW3 is going to be the last COD to hit PC. The signs seem self evident

huge console userbase of players vs smaller pc user base
pain in the ass to develop for such a varied 'platform' given vid cards alone.
hacks will happen - just 4 hours for mw3
Elite wont happen worth a damn.

Thoughts?

And nothing of value was lost.

zookeeper
15-11-2011, 10:28 PM
As it is though, I think it's one of the biggest missed opportunities in gaming. There should have been some payoff or reward for making it look like you were participating, but not actually killing anyone, and maybe even a chance to stealthily save some lives and get away with it.


That's what I thought would happen. I was shooting the hell out of the air.

I can't exactly recall, but can't you go through the whole level not firing at all without your co-conspirators getting suspicious? (though, i guess if they already know you're a spy then there's nothing to suspect is there?)

Taidan
17-11-2011, 08:49 AM
Here's a relevant, timely and very interesting argument about the nature of innovation in gaming:

Innovation has never been the cornerstone of the video game industry (http://www.examiner.com/arcade-game-in-national/innovation-has-never-been-the-cornerstone-of-the-video-game-industry)

coldvvvave
17-11-2011, 10:36 AM
However dumb BF3's campaign was, it didn't have a moment like that.
Looking back at BF3 campaign I just don't understand one thing. Do Swedes really think that a reasonably sane USMC veteran sargent would shoot his superior officer because a Russian agent told him to do so? Hey, shoot your boss and than somehow stop an alleged plot to nuke New York while I save Paris! Dramatic music was great and I enjoyed watching this on You Tube( I gave up on playing the thing after Al-Bashir mission) but when I started MP with my friends it just hit me how stupid it all was.

Nalano
17-11-2011, 12:08 PM
Looking back at BF3 campaign I just don't understand one thing. Do Swedes really think that a reasonably sane USMC veteran sargent would shoot his superior officer because a Russian agent told him to do so? Hey, shoot your boss and than somehow stop an alleged plot to nuke New York while I save Paris! Dramatic music was great and I enjoyed watching this on You Tube( I gave up on playing the thing after Al-Bashir mission) but when I started MP with my friends it just hit me how stupid it all was.

No argument from me there (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?1848-Things-we-learned-playing-BF3-Campaign&p=50802&viewfull=1#post50802).

kyrieee
17-11-2011, 12:42 PM
Sure is a change from CoD4's "dying alone in a nuclear wasteland" aspect. IT WAS A JOKE ALL ALONG. APRIL FRIGGIN' FOOLS!

Yup.
Do they still pop up those quotes every time you die? I can't imagine how out of place they would be in the game that CoD has become now. They started off wanting to make games that respected the WWII soldiers and have now ended up making the most gun porn / war gorifying games ever made.