Are you sick of Multiplatform Bashing?

  • 60 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by biggest_loser (219 posts) -

Who is sick of hearing people rubbishing great games just because they were released on other platforms besides PC?

Recently - at a certain other game site which shall remain nameless - I got quite sick of hearing it. To me it is just cynical. Sure people are entitled to their opinions but this is just ridiculous and unjustified.

I made a thread about COD5 and the new weapons and perks and all they did was say how bad COD4 was.

#2 Posted by DualReaver (3882 posts) -

Wasn't CoD4 released on all platforms?

#3 Posted by Vaxadrin (2297 posts) -

I'm so confused right now.

#4 Posted by biggest_loser (219 posts) -
DualReaver said:
"Wasn't CoD4 released on all platforms?"
Yes....it was ...
Your point? People are bashing that game needlessly because it was also released on Xbox360 as well as PC. Thats what I'm talking about.
#5 Posted by Vaxadrin (2297 posts) -

Are you talking about the kind of people who use phrases like "consolitis"?

Look, I'm sorry they dumbed down Deus Ex 2, PC guys, but Warren Spector already apologized for that.  Can't we put the past behind us?

#6 Posted by DualReaver (3882 posts) -

Well I'm not sick of it, because I've never seen it happen before.

#7 Posted by biggest_loser (219 posts) -

Yeah that sort of rubbish. I want to bring an end to this system war.

#8 Posted by DualReaver (3882 posts) -

Oh I get what you're talking about now.

The only thing I'm upset over is what happened to Rainbow 6.

#9 Posted by Colonel_Cool (808 posts) -
DualReaver said:
"Oh I get what you're talking about now.

The only thing I'm upset over is what happened to Rainbow 6."
I have absolutely no problem with big PC games going over to other consoles, and it is absolutely childish to want to keep all the good games on "my" platform. I do however, hate it when good games get dumbed down because of a need to fit the parameters of console gaming. The Rainbow 6 series is a good example. Also Bioshock.
#10 Edited by xruntime (1920 posts) -
biggest_loser said:
"Who is sick of hearing people rubbishing great games just because they were released on other platforms besides PC?

Recently - at a certain other game site which shall remain nameless - I got quite sick of hearing it. To me it is just cynical. Sure people are entitled to their opinions but this is just ridiculous and unjustified.

I made a thread about COD5 and the new weapons and perks and all they did was say how bad COD4 was."

I totally agree. The main victims of this are:

HALO - Its a kickass series, yet stuck up PC gamers won't admit it.

Call of Duty 4 - Its a really fun game, yet many PC gamers have something against it.

Bioshock - An excellent game that has been dumbed down for consoles. I've recently played System Shock 2, and even for me as a PC gamer, I'm overwhelmed by the complexity and difficulty of the game. I appreciate a fun game, not a game that requires a PhD to complete.

I probably missed a few...

Edit: Oh, and on the topic of Rainbow Six. They have dumbed it down I suppose, I posted a blog entry on this. The game still is a great game (coming from probably the biggest Rainbow Six + Rogue Spear + Raven Shield fan on this site) - but I think its valid criticism to say that I miss the ultra realism of the originals.
#11 Posted by biggest_loser (219 posts) -
Colonel_Cool said:
"DualReaver said:
"Oh I get what you're talking about now.

The only thing I'm upset over is what happened to Rainbow 6."
I have absolutely no problem with big PC games going over to other consoles, and it is absolutely childish to want to keep all the good games on "my" platform. I do however, hate it when good games get dumbed down because of a need to fit the parameters of console gaming. The Rainbow 6 series is a good example. Also Bioshock."
But this is the sort of crap I'm talking about.
And you just completely contradict yourself. What is the difference between what you called childish - that is keeping good games on my platform - and then saying you hate it when a game goes to console.
Bioshock is an excellent game. Wow, its not System Shock2 - If you wanted to play the damn thing blow the dust off the CD and stick it in your computer or anywhere else. GET OVER IT.
#12 Posted by Demyx (3237 posts) -

I haven't heard much of this personally

#13 Edited by DualReaver (3882 posts) -
biggest_loser said:
"Colonel_Cool said:
"DualReaver said:
"Oh I get what you're talking about now.

The only thing I'm upset over is what happened to Rainbow 6."
I have absolutely no problem with big PC games going over to other consoles, and it is absolutely childish to want to keep all the good games on "my" platform. I do however, hate it when good games get dumbed down because of a need to fit the parameters of console gaming. The Rainbow 6 series is a good example. Also Bioshock."
But this is the sort of crap I'm talking about.
And you just completely contradict yourself. What is the difference between what you called childish - that is keeping good games on my platform - and then saying you hate it when a game goes to console.
Bioshock is an excellent game. Wow, its not System Shock2 - If you wanted to play the damn thing blow the dust off the CD and stick it in your computer or anywhere else. GET OVER IT.
"
Umm I think he was trying to say that it's nice for everyone to be able to play the game, it just sucks when they completely change games you liked to cater to consoles.

As for Rainbow 6 I do kind of like the console version, but I'm a little saddened that they completely stopped making the realistic tactical shooter I loved.
#14 Posted by Black_Raven (1759 posts) -

There is some truth to it. Don't get me wrong, people that say "its multiplat so its going to suck" are wrong, but a console can hold back the potential of a game, not to mention its common for PC exclusives to have multiplat sequels that are dumbed down to apeal to a more casual ordence, which isnt hard to understand because a large percentage of console gamers are casual. Take the elder scrolls series, Bioshock and Randow 6 for example, all of them (in my opinion) went downhill when they became multiplat.

#15 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -

The problem with multiplatform games is they tend to be dumbed down and their potential is lowered compared to what it could be if they were released just on the PC. This is why many PC gamers tend to get pissy about multiplat games, myself included, because it often feels like we have been given the short straw of the deal.

#16 Posted by Bucketdeth (8048 posts) -

Yeah it does suck when people get on with shit like COD blows because it`s on multiplatform, but they are L33T because they are playing CounterStrike(Exclude Xbox version)
It`s always been that way, they think the developers will spend less time polishing the game and instead wastign time on creating it for the other consoles, in truth this does happen sometimes but alot of the time games can come out great for all systems, like Orange Box.

#17 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -

And just to mention about COD4 bashing, people who bash the game because its multiplatform need their head examined. COD4 is one of the best PC shooters there is, seriously the single player and multiplayer for this game is great, linear, but still awesome.

#18 Edited by DualReaver (3882 posts) -
Hamz said:
"And just to mention about COD4 bashing, people who bash the game because its multiplatform need their head examined. COD4 is one of the best PC shooters there is, seriously the single player and multiplayer for this game is great, linear, but still awesome."
Yeah I didn't get that, CoD4 didn't feel dumbed down at all compared to the older games.
#19 Posted by Vaxadrin (2297 posts) -

For Rainbow 6, Ubisoft said that decision was made because there's no market for really hardcore military shooters like the originals.  Even if it was PC only I think they would have made the decision.

Ghost Recon, though, that just feels like an arcade game now...blowing up tanks and trucks with machine guns.

#20 Posted by DualReaver (3882 posts) -

Really?
It seemed like a lot of people played Raven Shield.

#21 Posted by Vaxadrin (2297 posts) -

Maybe none of them paid for it?  I dunno.  It's Ubisoft, they say alot of things.

#22 Posted by Bulldog19892 (1795 posts) -

I have no qualms with any other platforms. I don't hate the PS3, there's just nothing about it that I find attractive. I'm both a 360, and PC gamer, and I do hate the PC gaming elitists who think all games should require a PhD to play and think of themselves as some kind of PC gaming master race.

I don't, however, like it when developers dumb down a game for consoles. Deus Ex 2 was a prime example. I loved the original, but the second game just felt like so much less in every way. Hopefully Deus Ex 3 will make up for it.

#23 Posted by biggest_loser (219 posts) -
Black_Raven said:
"There is some truth to it. Don't get me wrong, people that say "its multiplat so its going to suck" are wrong, but a console can hold back the potential of a game, not to mention its common for PC exclusives to have multiplat sequels that are dumbed down to apeal to a more casual ordence, which isnt hard to understand because a large percentage of console gamers are casual. Take the elder scrolls series, Bioshock and Randow 6 for example, all of them (in my opinion) went downhill when they became multiplat."
Bioshock would be no different if it was released on PC only . I guarantee it.
#24 Edited by Meresin (147 posts) -
xruntime said:
I totally agree. The main victims of this are:

HALO - Its a kickass series, yet stuck up PC gamers won't admit it.
I actually tend to think that PC gamers were never impressed by Halo because most of the things that were so admired about it in the console community were already being done on the PC.
#25 Posted by Hewkii (190 posts) -
DualReaver said:
"Yeah I didn't get that, CoD4 didn't feel dumbed down at all compared to the older games."
perhaps, but there was something about CoD 2 I liked better. maybe the weapons.
#26 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -
xruntime said:
HALO - Its a kickass series, yet stuck up PC gamers won't admit it.

Call of Duty 4 - Its a really fun game, yet many PC gamers have something against it.
Halo is a mediocre game franchise at best, on consoles its probably one of if not the best series of shooter games. However throw some PC shooters into the mix and Halo gets ripped a new one. The reason PC gamers are often seen "bashing" Halo is because the Halo fanboys praise it like its the best FPS game series ever, which couldn't be fruther from the truth to be honest. But seriously lets not open this can of worms and derail the topic with a Halo discussion.

COD4 gets some hate from the PC gamer community because of its linear gameplay and "noob" friendly feeling. But otherwise many PC gamers love it, probably the best online shooter at the moment other than TF2.
#27 Posted by zeus_gb (595 posts) -

The only time I hate multiplatform developed games is when the PC version is a direct port and just blatantly sucks.

#28 Posted by biggest_loser (219 posts) -
Hamz said:
"xruntime said:
HALO - Its a kickass series, yet stuck up PC gamers won't admit it.

Call of Duty 4 - Its a really fun game, yet many PC gamers have something against it.
Halo is a mediocre game franchise at best, on consoles its probably one of if not the best series of shooter games. However throw some PC shooters into the mix and Halo gets ripped a new one. The reason PC gamers are often seen "bashing" Halo is because the Halo fanboys praise it like its the best FPS game series ever, which couldn't be fruther from the truth to be honest. But seriously lets not open this can of worms and derail the topic with a Halo discussion.

COD4 gets some hate from the PC gamer community because of its linear gameplay and "noob" friendly feeling. But otherwise many PC gamers love it, probably the best online shooter at the moment other than TF2."
Linear Gameplay? And COD1 had a massive open world? I don't think so.
Whats a n00b friendly feeling? Explain.
#29 Posted by xruntime (1920 posts) -
Meresin said:
"xruntime said:
I totally agree. The main victims of this are:

HALO - Its a kickass series, yet stuck up PC gamers won't admit it.
I actually tend to think that PC gamers were never impressed by Halo because most of the things that were so admired about it in the console community were already being done on the PC."
So? The Half Life series more or less has been doing the same thing since 2004, yet PC gamers love it.  Halo is just using these same building blocks to make an enjoyable game with a different theme and setting. And I'm not reluctant to say it's probably my favorite multiplayer game on the PC, even above Team Fortress 2.

Hamz said:
"xruntime said:
HALO - Its a kickass series, yet stuck up PC gamers won't admit it.

Call of Duty 4 - Its a really fun game, yet many PC gamers have something against it.
Halo is a mediocre game franchise at best, on consoles its probably one of if not the best series of shooter games. However throw some PC shooters into the mix and Halo gets ripped a new one. The reason PC gamers are often seen "bashing" Halo is because the Halo fanboys praise it like its the best FPS game series ever, which couldn't be fruther from the truth to be honest. But seriously lets not open this can of worms and derail the topic with a Halo discussion.

COD4 gets some hate from the PC gamer community because of its linear gameplay and "noob" friendly feeling. But otherwise many PC gamers love it, probably the best online shooter at the moment other than TF2."

I'm a PC gamer, and I think its totally valid praise to say that Halo CE is one of the best shooter games ever. And I've played everything from Rainbow Six to System Shock 2 to Far Cry to Half Life. I think many PC gamers hate on it because it's one of the most successful video games of the last few years, and its main platform is the 360.

Why is linear gameplay considered bad? The one thing I hate is when people assume that a game is automatically better when its sandbox or open-ended or whatever you want to call it. I hate many open-ended games, I got bored of Morrowind within an hour or so, and I had no idea what to do anyways. Linear gaming has its advantages - stick to the fun combat, the story can be told more precisely, the action can be scripted. Truth be told, I like linear games more than open-ended games. Open-ended games all too often wear out their welcome through boring lulls in the action where all I'm doing is talking with NPCs and trying to find my way to the next battle.

And as biggest_loser said, COD is not a franchise that was dumbed down at all. COD4 = COD1 + Modern Warfare + Health Regeneration. Besides that, it's the same exact shoot-em-up linear game. And it's some of the most fun I've ever had in single player games.
#30 Posted by vash47 (20 posts) -
biggest_loser said:
"Who is sick of hearing people rubbishing great games just because they were released on other platforms besides PC?

Recently - at a certain other game site which shall remain nameless - I got quite sick of hearing it. To me it is just cynical. Sure people are entitled to their opinions but this is just ridiculous and unjustified.

I made a thread about COD5 and the new weapons and perks and all they did was say how bad COD4 was."
Because it was a bad game, no matter the plataform, seriously, I don't care if the game is in other formats.
#31 Posted by DualReaver (3882 posts) -
Hewkii said:
"DualReaver said:
"Yeah I didn't get that, CoD4 didn't feel dumbed down at all compared to the older games."
perhaps, but there was something about CoD 2 I liked better. maybe the weapons."
Yeah I know what you mean, I've been playing CoD 2 on and off since its release and love it way more than CoD4. CoD4 isn't bad at all though I just prefer CoD2.
#32 Edited by biggest_loser (219 posts) -
vash47 said:
"biggest_loser said:
"Who is sick of hearing people rubbishing great games just because they were released on other platforms besides PC?

Recently - at a certain other game site which shall remain nameless - I got quite sick of hearing it. To me it is just cynical. Sure people are entitled to their opinions but this is just ridiculous and unjustified.

I made a thread about COD5 and the new weapons and perks and all they did was say how bad COD4 was."
Because it was a bad game, no matter the plataform, seriously, I don't care if the game is in other formats."
Its not bad at all. How can you love the first game and not number 4? Its set to a formula as you know. Like what for you makes number 4 so much worse? I just can't understand that at all. Like can't you even enjoy the MP component of it? Did you want it to just stay in WWII forever?
#33 Posted by vash47 (20 posts) -

Well, I have to say it wasn't a bad game... after all it was a good experience a 7 or 6.5 in my book, but my complaints are as follow:

Extremely short campaign (though now that I look back, I think it was better)
Respawning enemies (so if you don't move from your location you can crouch all day killing the enemies)
Not a single interaction with the environment (seriously, wtf, the game hasn't physics yet!)
Many people say that the game isn't worth it if yopu don't play on veteran, I played in veteran and it was frustrating as hell, not fun at all, I even hear some excuses like: "LOL THE GAME IS LONGER IN VETERAN", yeah, because I die more times right?

About the WWII part, I could care less.

And well, the saving grace of the game might be its MP, but I don't play mutliplayer games, because I don't like them, and I have a slow-ass connection

So the game might be worth it for the MP because I don't have an idea of how it plays, but I've always judged COD games based on the SP.

Also, Off topic, but they banned me from gamespot hehehe....

#34 Posted by Black_Raven (1759 posts) -
vash47 said:
"Well, I have to say it wasn't a bad game... after all it was a good experience a 7 or 6.5 in my book, but my complaints are as follow:

Extremely short campaign (though now that I look back, I think it was better)
Respawning enemies (so if you don't move from your location you can crouch all day killing the enemies)
Not a single interaction with the environment (seriously, wtf, the game hasn't physics yet!)
Many people say that the game isn't worth it if yopu don't play on veteran, I played in veteran and it was frustrating as hell, not fun at all, I even hear some excuses like: "LOL THE GAME IS LONGER IN VETERAN", yeah, because I die more times right?

About the WWII part, I could care less.

And well, the saving grace of the game might be its MP, but I don't play mutliplayer games, because I don't like them, and I have a slow-ass connection

So the game might be worth it for the MP because I don't have an idea of how it plays, but I've always judged COD games based on the SP.

Also, Off topic, but they banned me from gamespot hehehe...."
I agree, i have COD4 on PC and its really awesome at first, but because of its linear gameplay there isn't much to it and i got bored really quickly, i reinstalled windows about 4 months ago and haven't even bothered to install COD4 again.
#35 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -
biggest_loser said:
"Linear Gameplay? And COD1 had a massive open world? I don't think so.
Whats a n00b friendly feeling? Explain."
Did i say or mention anything about COD1 not being linear? I don't think so. I probably should have stated i was meaning the multiplayer is rather noob friendly, or new player friendly, since the various perks and grenade spam reduce the level of skill needed. Not that i really care myself, but its an issue that usually comes up with most COD4 players.

xruntime said:
"So? The Half Life series more or less has been doing the same thing since 2004, yet PC gamers love it.  Halo is just using these same building blocks to make an enjoyable game with a different theme and setting. And I'm not reluctant to say it's probably my favorite multiplayer game on the PC, even above Team Fortress 2."
Thats exactly my point. Halo is doing nothing different to what PC gamers have already experienced which is usually why they don't give it much time.xruntime said:
"I'm a PC gamer, and I think its totally valid praise to say that Halo CE is one of the best shooter games ever. And I've played everything from Rainbow Six to System Shock 2 to Far Cry to Half Life. I think many PC gamers hate on it because it's one of the most successful video games of the last few years, and its main platform is the 360.

Why is linear gameplay considered bad? The one thing I hate is when people assume that a game is automatically better when its sandbox or open-ended or whatever you want to call it. I hate many open-ended games, I got bored of Morrowind within an hour or so, and I had no idea what to do anyways. Linear gaming has its advantages - stick to the fun combat, the story can be told more precisely, the action can be scripted. Truth be told, I like linear games more than open-ended games. Open-ended games all too often wear out their welcome through boring lulls in the action where all I'm doing is talking with NPCs and trying to find my way to the next battle.

And as biggest_loser said, COD is not a franchise that was dumbed down at all. COD4 = COD1 + Modern Warfare + Health Regeneration. Besides that, it's the same exact shoot-em-up linear game. And it's some of the most fun I've ever had in single player games.
"
I disagree with you're opinion about it being one of the best shooter games ever but thats just me. And as for why many PC gamers hate on Halo its usually not the game itself that they hate but rather the fanboys who swear its the best game in the FPS genre ever and that nothing created before or after it will trump its awesome. It just happens to be more entertaining for people to say "halo sucks!" and watch people reply with caps lock rage over the internet. Personally i don't hate or like Halo, i'm somewhat neutral to it as my dislike is usually always directed at the fanboys who swear blind its better than every other shooter. And thats usually where i point out the flaws or PC shooters that are equally as good if not better, if thats considered "hating" on a game then fair enough.

Linear gameplay is just something gamers have become tired with but it doesn't necessarily mean a game is bad because its linear. COD4 was linear, there was little choice for the player to make other than which dude to shoot in the face first but it was still an awesome single player experience. Oblivion on the other hand was open world, sandbox and bloody awefull. As for Morrowind it sounds like you perhaps just didn't understand the game or where to go? If thats the case then its a valid point as to why sand box gameplay can have a negative effect on the players experience with a game. We play games for fun and sometimes we don't have hours to spend at a time so linear gameplay can be good in that situation.

The FPS genre is really full of linear shooters where players aren't required to make many choices as they're made for the player. Nothing wrong with this of course but its always nice to see a change, a break from the norm if you will, so thats why some people do prefer to have sand box or open world gameplay instead of more linear gameplay. Honestly it doesn't matter to me as again both linear and open world gameplay has its ups and downs.

And i assume you're final comment is still directed at me? If so then i never said COD4 was dumbed down because it was a multiplatform game.

#36 Edited by biggest_loser (219 posts) -
vash47 said:
"Well, I have to say it wasn't a bad game... after all it was a good experience a 7 or 6.5 in my book, but my complaints are as follow:

Extremely short campaign (though now that I look back, I think it was better)
Respawning enemies (so if you don't move from your location you can crouch all day killing the enemies)
Not a single interaction with the environment (seriously, wtf, the game hasn't physics yet!)
Many people say that the game isn't worth it if yopu don't play on veteran, I played in veteran and it was frustrating as hell, not fun at all, I even hear some excuses like: "LOL THE GAME IS LONGER IN VETERAN", yeah, because I die more times right?

About the WWII part, I could care less.

And well, the saving grace of the game might be its MP, but I don't play mutliplayer games, because I don't like them, and I have a slow-ass connection

So the game might be worth it for the MP because I don't have an idea of how it plays, but I've always judged COD games based on the SP.

Also, Off topic, but they banned me from gamespot hehehe...."
COD1's campaign was only about 10 hours. Quite short too. It also had respawning enemies. Hell, even MOH: AA had respawning enemies! Its nothing new bucko!
COD1 didn't have environment interaction. Few WWII shooters did. Why? Do you want to open a draw or something? C'mon.

I agree the difficulty needed to be tweaked but the game was still fun on the hardest setting.

You really have to try the MP. Its half of the game. You say its short but I've spent over 60 hours alone on MP.

I'm glad they banned you. It was a long time coming because you could be a real smarty pants sometimes with those little remarks you used to make to me.
I'm like an elephant curly! I don't forget!
#37 Posted by vash47 (20 posts) -
biggest_loser said:
"vash47 said:
"Well, I have to say it wasn't a bad game... after all it was a good experience a 7 or 6.5 in my book, but my complaints are as follow:

Extremely short campaign (though now that I look back, I think it was better)
Respawning enemies (so if you don't move from your location you can crouch all day killing the enemies)
Not a single interaction with the environment (seriously, wtf, the game hasn't physics yet!)
Many people say that the game isn't worth it if yopu don't play on veteran, I played in veteran and it was frustrating as hell, not fun at all, I even hear some excuses like: "LOL THE GAME IS LONGER IN VETERAN", yeah, because I die more times right?

About the WWII part, I could care less.

And well, the saving grace of the game might be its MP, but I don't play mutliplayer games, because I don't like them, and I have a slow-ass connection

So the game might be worth it for the MP because I don't have an idea of how it plays, but I've always judged COD games based on the SP.

Also, Off topic, but they banned me from gamespot hehehe...."
COD1's campaign was only about 10 hours. Quite short too. It also had respawning enemies. Hell, even MOH: AA had respawning enemies! Its nothing new bucko!
COD1 didn't have environment interaction. Few WWII shooters did. Why? Do you want to open a draw or something? C'mon.

I agree the difficulty needed to be tweaked but the game was still fun on the hardest setting.

You really have to try the MP. Its half of the game. You say its short but I've spent over 60 hours alone on MP.

I'm glad they banned you. It was a long time coming because you could be a real smarty pants sometimes with those little remarks you used to make to me.
I'm like an elephant curly! I don't forget!"
Whatever dude, I have a hard time understanding your messages...
And COD was released on 2003, and it had a much better and longer campaign than COD4.
#38 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -
biggest_loser said:
I'm glad they banned you. It was a long time coming because you could be a real smarty pants sometimes with those little remarks you used to make to me.
I'm like an elephant curly! I don't forget!
Thats pretty uncalled for. If you have issues with users on other websites then cool but don't continue it over to here.
#39 Posted by pause422 (6249 posts) -

I don't mind multiplatform games at all, if they are somehow dumbed down and I realize it, I would get a bit pissed, but sometimes they include some stuff on the PC that aren't on consoles, even little things. I do like a change though, an open world game like FarCry 2 and Fallout3 coming up, I think will give me some variety from all the linear games I've been playing. For the most part though, I think people are usually good with making games equal and not dumbing too much down..except when it comes to RTS's and squad/strategy games, hence the r6 series/ghost recon. If its just visuals though, it doesn't bother me a lot, though I kind of wish they took the time to make them way better on the PC...when you just know a game could of looked better if it was made for a high end PC and not the 360, other than that these things really don't bother me much. Also, halo is completely unoriginal to most PC gamers, thats th eonly place the 'hate' comes from..we've been playing that game, plus way better before it ever came out, I have at least, from plenty of other games.

#40 Posted by biggest_loser (219 posts) -
vash47 said:
"biggest_loser said:
"vash47 said:
"Well, I have to say it wasn't a bad game... after all it was a good experience a 7 or 6.5 in my book, but my complaints are as follow:

Extremely short campaign (though now that I look back, I think it was better)
Respawning enemies (so if you don't move from your location you can crouch all day killing the enemies)
Not a single interaction with the environment (seriously, wtf, the game hasn't physics yet!)
Many people say that the game isn't worth it if yopu don't play on veteran, I played in veteran and it was frustrating as hell, not fun at all, I even hear some excuses like: "LOL THE GAME IS LONGER IN VETERAN", yeah, because I die more times right?

About the WWII part, I could care less.

And well, the saving grace of the game might be its MP, but I don't play mutliplayer games, because I don't like them, and I have a slow-ass connection

So the game might be worth it for the MP because I don't have an idea of how it plays, but I've always judged COD games based on the SP.

Also, Off topic, but they banned me from gamespot hehehe...."
COD1's campaign was only about 10 hours. Quite short too. It also had respawning enemies. Hell, even MOH: AA had respawning enemies! Its nothing new bucko!
COD1 didn't have environment interaction. Few WWII shooters did. Why? Do you want to open a draw or something? C'mon.

I agree the difficulty needed to be tweaked but the game was still fun on the hardest setting.

You really have to try the MP. Its half of the game. You say its short but I've spent over 60 hours alone on MP.

I'm glad they banned you. It was a long time coming because you could be a real smarty pants sometimes with those little remarks you used to make to me.
I'm like an elephant curly! I don't forget!"
Whatever dude, I have a hard time understanding your messages...
And COD was released on 2003, and it had a much better and longer campaign than COD4."
You have a hard time understanding? Allow me to refresh then:
You haven't tried the multiplayer.
The things you complained about were still in COD1.
#41 Posted by xruntime (1920 posts) -

Open world for a change? I'd like some more linear games for a change! I think game developers are all hopping on the open ended bandwagon, just look at all these new games, Fallout 3, STALKER Clear Sky, Far Cry 2, etc .etc.

I've liked open world games GTA III and Need for Speed Underground 2, but that was mostly because it was fun driving from place to place. I could pick up any car in GTA, and I could drive a hundred mph in NSFU2. The actual gameplay was fun. I've yet to play a FPS/RPG hybrid that didn't bore me after a while...maybe STALKER Clear Sky will be the one.

And it's not just Morrowind. In STALKER Shadow of Chernobyl, after I saw the scenery, picked up most of the weapons, encountered most of the enemies, and seen most of the places, I was pretty much done. I get bored if I have to do the same old thing in the same old places over and over again..and I play FPS games for the combat, not for the leveling/stats, not for picking up items in my inventory, and not for getting random quests from NPCs.

I have a pretty short attention span, and games like HL2: Episode Two and Call of Duty 4 are perfect for people like me because they're short, they stick to the story and the combat, and they're fun. I'm all for linearity.

So back to the topic - I think Call of Duty 4 is great, and it's my favorite single player game of 2007.

#42 Posted by vash47 (20 posts) -
biggest_loser said:
"vash47 said:
"biggest_loser said:
"vash47 said:
"Well, I have to say it wasn't a bad game... after all it was a good experience a 7 or 6.5 in my book, but my complaints are as follow:

Extremely short campaign (though now that I look back, I think it was better)
Respawning enemies (so if you don't move from your location you can crouch all day killing the enemies)
Not a single interaction with the environment (seriously, wtf, the game hasn't physics yet!)
Many people say that the game isn't worth it if yopu don't play on veteran, I played in veteran and it was frustrating as hell, not fun at all, I even hear some excuses like: "LOL THE GAME IS LONGER IN VETERAN", yeah, because I die more times right?

About the WWII part, I could care less.

And well, the saving grace of the game might be its MP, but I don't play mutliplayer games, because I don't like them, and I have a slow-ass connection

So the game might be worth it for the MP because I don't have an idea of how it plays, but I've always judged COD games based on the SP.

Also, Off topic, but they banned me from gamespot hehehe...."
COD1's campaign was only about 10 hours. Quite short too. It also had respawning enemies. Hell, even MOH: AA had respawning enemies! Its nothing new bucko!
COD1 didn't have environment interaction. Few WWII shooters did. Why? Do you want to open a draw or something? C'mon.

I agree the difficulty needed to be tweaked but the game was still fun on the hardest setting.

You really have to try the MP. Its half of the game. You say its short but I've spent over 60 hours alone on MP.

I'm glad they banned you. It was a long time coming because you could be a real smarty pants sometimes with those little remarks you used to make to me.
I'm like an elephant curly! I don't forget!"
Whatever dude, I have a hard time understanding your messages...
And COD was released on 2003, and it had a much better and longer campaign than COD4."
You have a hard time understanding? Allow me to refresh then:
You haven't tried the multiplayer.
The things you complained about were still in COD1."
I was referring to the part of your "elephant" bullshit.
And do you remember when COD came out, when shooters weren't as mature as today, when shooters were just implementing physics?
#43 Posted by Vaxadrin (2297 posts) -

Call of Duty is 3d whack-a-mole with a military theme.

#44 Posted by MadExponent (305 posts) -

COD4 added to the series, so it's not dumbed down at all.  I actually prefer the 360 controller, because I don't have to take my hands off at any time to do a melee attack, call in support, or change weapons.  I have the PC version BTW.  I can have fun on it, and the KB/Mouse config works for better accuracy, it's just that the config that I made, forces me to take my hands off the directional keys when I try to do the aforementioned actions.  So, this is one I'd rather just play on the 360.  Now, if Battlefield Bad Company was out on PC, I'd much rather play it on that.

#45 Posted by xruntime (1920 posts) -

@yash47

Call of Duty came out in late 2003. Shooters were very mature back then, it was only five years ago.

#46 Posted by VaultBoy (194 posts) -

I think the PC gamers often have valid complaints because the developers miss the target audience when the game is low resolution (or other graphical issues like low quality textures), has poor control schemes, lacks depth, or is lacking in any other way.  I think it's obvious quite a few games suffer from being released on multiple platforms.  Sure, some games are great on all platforms; but even then the PC version rarely utilizes the advantages of being on a PC.  I'd rather developers have the PC version be the baseline and scale back for all other platforms.  Look at how well that strategy worked for Orange Box.

As far as COD4, I haven't played it but the COD series has always been more of an arcade-shooter than say a tactical shooter with depth.  Even from COD1 to COD2 they "dumbed-down" the game a bit.  I don't really think it would matter if COD4 was a PC exclusive as the series has been progressively becoming more simplistic.

As far as the Halo series, they're great FPSs if you're only looking at what's available on consoles.  But, there are much better shooters on the PC.  Halo essentially provided the PC FPS experience (that PC gamers had been enjoying for quite a few years) to consoles.  I think most PC gamers would've welcomed their Halo playing brethren aboard if the Halo fanboys hadn't been so obstinate about Halo being the "ZOMG BEST GAME EVAR!"  It's about on par with someone saying Starcraft 64 is the "ZOMG BEST RTS EVAR!".

#47 Posted by xruntime (1920 posts) -

Besides health regeneration, the series has not been dumbed down in any way. What are you talking about?

PC gamers claim that there are so many better shooters than Halo on the PC because they refuse to see the shooter genre thrive on the consoles. Face it, Halo is one of the best FPS games of all time, whether you consider the Xbox, the PC, or every single platform out there. There are almost 5000 people playing a form of Halo online on the PC right now - that's almost half of TF2, and its been years since Halo was released for the PC. There is a PC gamer crowd that doesn't hold grudges against the series.

#48 Posted by Colonel_Cool (808 posts) -
biggest_loser said:
"Black_Raven said:
"There is some truth to it. Don't get me wrong, people that say "its multiplat so its going to suck" are wrong, but a console can hold back the potential of a game, not to mention its common for PC exclusives to have multiplat sequels that are dumbed down to apeal to a more casual ordence, which isnt hard to understand because a large percentage of console gamers are casual. Take the elder scrolls series, Bioshock and Randow 6 for example, all of them (in my opinion) went downhill when they became multiplat."
Bioshock would be no different if it was released on PC only . I guarantee it."
You sure about that? The whole game had a console-ized feel, from the controls to the difficulty to the graphics. It was clearly intended to be playable on consoles. I'm sure if it were developed a PC only title it would have been substantially different in several areas.
#49 Posted by Gunner612 (4338 posts) -

No im not tired of it. When i see people make a gaming montoge on CoD4 using a 360 or a PS3 i die a little inside. Because i know that CoD4 on the PC is a much much better game than on the 360 or any console. Auto-Aim FTL.

#50 Posted by Jordan23 (1000 posts) -
I'm just getting tired of all these multiplatforming games in general. These developers nowadays should start creating new IP's for the gaming market. You can only milk a game for so long before it start to get stale.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.