I have already posted this on a few forums the original i made for my MLG forum user:

I remember the happy months of playing call of duty 4 online, trying to get to that last prestige, that last golden gun. Then world at war came out and I got that, and it was a good change for awhile, especially zombies Then Modern Warfare 2 came out soon after, at first it seemed good improving on the multilayer that cod4 had been so good for but after a while I noticed that it just wasn't so fun to play, it was effectively the same minus some additional features, it might as well have been an expansion for cod4! And when I thought it was already going downhill black ops sneaks in out of nowhere and what is it? It effectively is with a few minor improvements of modern warfare 2 and world at war combined. I look at games such as Crysis and gears of war which have only released (or about to release) 2 or 3 games in all. All of which have major advances in the games engine and greatly improved features. The developers seem to genuinely care for their franchise and its reputation. Other games such as halo also come to mind. Minus the ODST game which well should really have been an expansions have all had major improvements. How can people be expected to play games repeatedly if there is a new one out every 6 months? The call of duty series lets face it has got to ******y from the success of cod4 and has been blinded by the money to be made by quickly releasing new games with slight changes and a new campaign they know that many will just buy it so that they will not be left on the modern warfare 2 server with no one left to play with. Lucky for me there is still a large amount of people playing the last title in the COD series with some dignity left in its name and with some genuine effort put into its making. You will find me in the cod 4 servers.

Anotehr user even compared it to Wow and eve online as such as the bring out so many new games it is like a subscription to buy the new one or be left behind.

quit simply yes, but still less raging idiots on other games so that's good I geus.

COD is the equivalent of the EA sports franchises. They'll bring out a new version every year so you'll continue to plop down $60 and they can keep making money. The days of buying a copy of half life and then playing it and mods for years on end for free are long gone.

But I feel your pain OP.. 60$ a year? That's not so bad.. Up to this day Sims 3 with all add-ons (base released 27 Jan 2011 on Steam) costs more than 200€.. WTF?
If this keeps up I'll be playing only Minecraft, Desktop Dungeons and other non-main stream games.. Every crap today has some additional downloadable content..

Can't wait for Crysis 2 and half life episode 3 (both games of which obvious effort has been put into as they have been in production for years) to come out they should last awhile, and by the time the news ones come out after that i suppose either people will have caught on to Infinity Ward and Treyarch's money making schemes and stopped buying them or it will be on Call of Duty modern warfare 10 based on the modern warfare 2 engine

I'll just play the ones I like, i'm not going to buy every COD game, I watched some gameplay, reviews of BO's before I bought it and I didn't like MW2 so I didn't play it.

I do understand your point though.

COD is fine, I just prefer ATLANTIC SALMON.

Mordoskul wrote:COD is fine, I just prefer ATLANTIC SALMON.

knew it was gonna happen

DA's Forever wrote:

Mordoskul wrote:COD is fine, I just prefer ATLANTIC SALMON.

knew it was gonna happen

Considering it was in the title.....

Slarg232 wrote:

DA's Forever wrote:

Mordoskul wrote:COD is fine, I just prefer ATLANTIC SALMON.

knew it was gonna happen

Considering it was in the title.....

i thought we might have had some self restraint for once

Heck I have only played CODMW2 and that was for about an hour when I rented it on my gamepass. Before that the last war FPS I played b was Black...

So even though I haven't played any of them, still think there is way too many and it is not just COD. What about all the other bandwagon games that are trying to mimic it. SOCOM IV is about the only one I would play, because at least they come out at a decent rate. There is just too many FPS that are like COD. Almost as bad as the guitar hero games.

Personally I think the market for them is going to crash. Seriously how many times can someone play a game about war and shooting people? Maybe I am weird, but I have to mix it up a bit. I couldn't play WoW all day for years like a lot of people. Heck I can't even play Dragon Age 2 right after playing the first one.

The games are pretty good.

It is kinda silly how they have annualized CoD, make something a little different now and then.

Yes, but so does MoH, BF, and so many other series. Still good though, I just intend to play Homefront next instead.

I have to say though, Black Ops was an excellent change for them.

The Cold War and Vietnam really was an excellent time period, and the story mode for that game was unrivaled.

I hope their next installment, which is supposed to be sci-fi, really does well. Needs more multipalyer sci-fi.

Melissia wrote:I hope their next installment, which is supposed to be sci-fi, really does well. Needs more multipalyer sci-fi.

Call of Halo: Modern Reach.

I can see it now....

Melissia wrote:Yes, but so does MoH, BF, and so many other series. Still good though, I just intend to play Homefront next instead.

Prepare to be disappointed.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Yes, but so does MoH, BF, and so many other series. Still good though, I just intend to play Homefront next instead.

Prepare to be disappointed.

You mean just like the BF series disappointed me despite how many people seem to consider it the messiah of modern FPS games?

I have plenty of reasons to believe I will like Homefront. The only thing that has me worried right now is their position on the dominance of vehicles.

DA's Forever wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

DA's Forever wrote:

Mordoskul wrote:COD is fine, I just prefer ATLANTIC SALMON.

knew it was gonna happen

Considering it was in the title.....

i thought we might have had some self restraint for once

On Dakka?

NOOOoooooo.....

I have just heard that bungie has seemingly sold the rights to the halo franchise to 343 studios who are making a halo 4 :( so much for the one epic ending to the halo franchise. It gonna ruin it like the call of duty series.

FiRe SuPeRiOrItY wrote:I have just heard that bungie has seemingly sold the rights to the halo franchise to 343 studios who are making a halo 4 :( so much for the one epic ending to the halo franchise. It gonna ruin it like the call of duty series.

Bungie agreed to that before Reach.

I for one, will be leaving the series after Reach. The original storyline has be told with prologue, and I was never a fan of the Haloverse enough to care for it.

However, Bungie has earned my respect with how much they crammed into Reach/Halo3, and as such I will be paying attention to whatever tehy release next. I keep hearing about this Oni game getting a sequel (by fans, honestly), and I am going to have to look into that.

Oni was a third person action/fighting/shooting game. It was pretty neat for its time.

Wow this is the biggest topic i have ever started, and its pretty funny that you guy have had more of a response than the guys on the MLG forum :p there forum is pretty low on numebr I think compared to dakkadakka

Eep, how did that post of mine end up here? Peculiar, I meant to post it in the minecraft section.

I have no problem with the number of CoD games being released. In fact, I encourage it.

Here's why:

1) It gives the FPS fanboy a series to overhype other than Halo

2) It keeps Activision from zombifying their good franchises

3) It keeps the kiddies contained and away from the better online games

4) I know these games are terrible, so I don't have to spend my money to find that out when I get home

5) It over-saturates the FPS market, hurrying it's death to allow other genres to fill the void

6) The midnight releases make life even more punishing to GameStop employees, and they all deserve their souls crushed for working there

7) It fully commits Activision's reliance on Guitar Hero and CoD, so when these franchises die, Activision will too

8) After the collapse, the new generation of gamers will learn that there's plenty of great games out there whose names they don't already recognize

9) The series appears to be getting worse and worse graphics with each game, so that when people stop playing CoD, they'll be impressed by the graphics of classic games on the SNES

10) It generates enough profits for Vivendi that they may be satisfied and stop purchasing and ruining every developer they meet

Wow.

That's incredibly arrogant, pompous, and dickish.

Seriously... saying you are better than someone else just because you have a different taste in games?

Geeze. I don't even do that when I insult blizzard.

Grakmar wrote:I have no problem with the number of CoD games being released. In fact, I encourage it.

Here's why:

1) It gives the FPS fanboy a series to overhype other than Halo

2) It keeps Activision from zombifying their good franchises

3) It keeps the kiddies contained and away from the better online games

4) I know these games are terrible, so I don't have to spend my money to find that out when I get home

5) It over-saturates the FPS market, hurrying it's death to allow other genres to fill the void

6) The midnight releases make life even more punishing to GameStop employees, and they all deserve their souls crushed for working there

7) It fully commits Activision's reliance on Guitar Hero and CoD, so when these franchises die, Activision will too

8) After the collapse, the new generation of gamers will learn that there's plenty of great games out there whose names they don't already recognize

9) The series appears to be getting worse and worse graphics with each game, so that when people stop playing CoD, they'll be impressed by the graphics of classic games on the SNES

10) It generates enough profits for Vivendi that they may be satisfied and stop purchasing and ruining every developer they meet

Whoo!

Melissia wrote:Wow.

That's incredibly arrogant, pompous, and dickish.

Seriously... saying you are better than someone else just because you have a different taste in games?

Geeze. I don't even do that when I insult blizzard.

Wait wut? If you're referencing Grakmar, it really seemed like a harmless joke (with a dose of the truth)

Considering I've met people who honestly believe most of those things, I'm not so sure.

asimo77 wrote:

Melissia wrote:Wow.

That's incredibly arrogant, pompous, and dickish.

Seriously... saying you are better than someone else just because you have a different taste in games?

Geeze. I don't even do that when I insult blizzard.

Wait wut? If you're referencing Grakmar, it really seemed like a harmless joke (with a dose of the truth)

Theres really very little objective truth to any of it. The CoD games are incredibly high development value, well rated, and very popular games. It behoves the "in crowd" of gamers to hate the big franchises, but frankly outside of Killzone, Halo, and CoDs bi yearly sequels the ice that the console FPS fan skates on is very thin. There simply isn't much quality outside of those titles to be found. It's not particularly better on the PC side where franchises like Battlefield and Left4Dead perform the same trick. I can understand the hipster gamers hatred of popular franchises, but that doesn't mean they get to exist outside of objective review, and threads like this are a bit sad.

Melissia wrote:Wow.

That's incredibly arrogant, pompous, and dickish.

Seriously... saying you are better than someone else just because you have a different taste in games?

Geeze. I don't even do that when I insult blizzard.

I by no means meant that I'm better than anyone else.

(With the exception of those 12 year old kids you find online screaming profanities and racial slurs at the top of their lungs while they "teabag" your corpse. I'm way better than those kids. At least for now. In fifteen years or so, they'll all have grown up and matured and will be just as annoyed by the new group of kids doing the same thing. And, I'll have a bad back and be raising my own little screaming hellions. I'll be trying to be a good parent, but life is just overwhelming sometimes and kids those days just don't listen. They don't have respect for their elders. Plus, these new-fangled VR machine confuse me! Just the other day, Rupert Murdoch's head-in-a-jar warned me about a communist conspiracy to use VR to take over my kids' brains! I know that that's a dumb idea, but it does frighten me. I should really supervise my kids and make sure they're behaving appropriately. But, that's too much work. I'll just sit here watching Fox News all the time...)

Sorry, that aside really started to ramble by the end.

Anyway, back to my original point. I don't think I'm better than anyone (exception: see above).

I do think that Activision has become overly focused on spitting out the same game over and over again. It's made me hate them, hate their games, and hope their company goes out of business.

The early games in the CoD and Guitar Hero are classics. They are games that will be looked back on with pride. You'll find a post on some forum a decade or two from now about Guitar Hero, or CoD 2 and think "Wow! That game is amazing! I should go find an old copy!" It's the fact that they get re-released over and over with a minimal amount of polish that bothers me. They seem to be more fan mods than actual new releases.

I think that there is a younger generation of gamers that has grown up in the golden age of FPS. It started quite a while ago, and has quite the impressive run. But, I think the genre is getting stale. I've grown tired of cookie-cutter FPS. The market needs to (and I believe will) stop buying so many repetitive franchise games.

These younger gamers don't deserve any blame (apart from immaturity, which we all had to suffer). They grew up in an age when FPS games were some of the best games on the market. You can't blame them for enjoying the best games.

But, it's come time in which we all need to raise our expectations. We need to stop throwing down $60 on games we've all played a dozen times. We need to stand up and say: "You can have my money. But, you have to give me something worth it."

I do think that Activision has become overly focused on spitting out the same game over and over again. It's made me hate them, hate their games, and hope their company goes out of business.

Have become? Where were you when they were doing it to the tony hawk franchise on the playstation one? Thats the nature of popular sequential titles, it's how it's always worked. Does it piss you off that theres a new final fantasy every 24 months?

The early games in the CoD and Guitar Hero are classics. They are games that will be looked back on with pride. You'll find a post on some forum a decade or two from now about Guitar Hero, or CoD 2 and think "Wow! That game is amazing! I should go find an old copy!" It's the fact that they get re-released over and over with a minimal amount of polish that bothers me.

Modern warfare was the best call of duty they had ever put out. By a huge margin. It sold better, was better rated, is better remembered, and had a much bigger impact on the industry then any previous CoD title.

It's the fact that they get re-released over and over with a minimal amount of polish that bothers me.

I think you're truly unaware of the amount of money and polish that actually goes into the CoD franchise at this point.

They seem to be more fan mods than actual new releases.

That doesn't even make sense.

I think that there is a younger generation of gamers that has grown up in the golden age of FPS. It started quite a while ago, and has quite the impressive run. But, I think the genre is getting stale. I've grown tired of cookie-cutter FPS. The market needs to (and I believe will) stop buying so many repetitive franchise games.

The golden age? You mean when it was the metal corridor crawler age of Doom and Quale (puke)? The "everything is a mod of half life" age of half life, counterstrike and team fortress (still going)? The "Look i have physics!" age of half life 2? What golden age?

You sure you just don't live in an ivory tower and got beaten too much playing MW2?

These younger gamers don't deserve any blame (apart from immaturity, which we all had to suffer). They grew up in an age when FPS games were some of the best games on the market. You can't blame them for enjoying the best games.

The only time when FPS games were the "best on the market" was the month immediately following half life one and the release of halo 1. Maybe modern warfare 1. Maybe. Unless you're talking about wolfenstein or something, in which case you should probably stop.

But, it's come time in which we all need to raise our expectations. We need to stop throwing down $60 on games we've all played a dozen times. We need to stand up and say: "You can have my money. But, you have to give me something worth it."

And yet I bet for the life of you you're unable to actually state what that is or what is repetitive in current games.

For myself, the problem I have is that every main character for these games is a generic military (or ex-military) white boy, usually with interchangeable personalities (if they had any).

But that's pretty much always been the case for American games.

Melissia wrote:For myself, the problem I have is that every main character for these games is a generic military (or ex-military) white boy, usually with interchangeable personalities (if they had any).

But that's pretty much always been the case for American games.

You mean the protagonist of a shooting game might feature someone with vague military training? A shooting game where the protagonist is military! Novel! There have been a fair number without that trope, though most good ones are valve games. As for the race, thats primarily a marketing decision, though isn't the crysis guy latino or something? In fairness the military white guy has been a trop since the very first FPS and the major market for these games is caucasian.

CoD seems annualized but in truth the developer behind them has two years to develop the game. I think it would be almost safe to say that Modern Warfare and Black Ops are almost two different franchises under the Call of Duty name.

As far as their being too many of them, I don't think there are.

Sports games have been cited, but the number of Mario games is plain ridiculous even if you don't include anything before the Wii.

New Super Mario Brothers, Mario Galaxy, Mario Galaxy 2, Mario Super Sluggers, Mario Party 8(yes there have been eight mario parties in total), Mario Kart, etc.

Mario has been overdone and so has Sonic.

I would like to see how CoD does a futuristic game although I see a Battlefield 2142 without vehicles and with better graphics as the result.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:For myself, the problem I have is that every main character for these games is a generic military (or ex-military) white boy, usually with interchangeable personalities (if they had any).

But that's pretty much always been the case for American games.

You mean the protagonist of a shooting game might feature someone with vague military training? A shooting game where the protagonist is military! Novel! There have been a fair number without that trope, though most good ones are valve games. As for the race, thats primarily a marketing decision, though isn't the crysis guy latino or something? In fairness the military white guy has been a trop since the very first FPS and the major market for these games is caucasian.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:For myself, the problem I have is that every main character for these games is a generic military (or ex-military) white boy, usually with interchangeable personalities (if they had any).

But that's pretty much always been the case for American games.

You mean the protagonist of a shooting game might feature someone with vague military training? A shooting game where the protagonist is military! Novel! There have been a fair number without that trope, though most good ones are valve games. As for the race, thats primarily a marketing decision, though isn't the crysis guy latino or something? In fairness the military white guy has been a trop since the very first FPS and the major market for these games is caucasian.

And yet, they are. How many good FPS games have you seen with playable female characters in single player... or for that matter, multiplayer? Or playable Black, Oriental, Native American, Hispanic, Middle-Eastern characters...

Yes, it's a marketing decision, that doesn't make my complaint any less valid.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:For myself, the problem I have is that every main character for these games is a generic military (or ex-military) white boy, usually with interchangeable personalities (if they had any).

But that's pretty much always been the case for American games.

You mean the protagonist of a shooting game might feature someone with vague military training? A shooting game where the protagonist is military! Novel! There have been a fair number without that trope, though most good ones are valve games. As for the race, thats primarily a marketing decision, though isn't the crysis guy latino or something? In fairness the military white guy has been a trop since the very first FPS and the major market for these games is caucasian.

And yet, they are. How many good FPS games have you seen with playable female characters in single player... or for that matter, multiplayer? Or playable Black, Oriental, Native American, Hispanic, Middle-Eastern characters...

Yes, it's a marketing decision, that doesn't make my complaint any less valid.

But your complaint isn't an issue with the game perse so much as an issue with western media economics in general. How many RTS games feature black protagonists? Platformers? Etc?

Shuma, melissia likes to complain about the lack of females and minorities in games. You can't beat her there trust me.

Well looks like this thread just got serious

Be misogynistically dismissive as is your wont, halonachos, but it is still a valid complaint from customer to game provider.

ShumaGorath wrote:But your complaint isn't an issue with the game perse so much as an issue with western media economics in general.

In the end, the result is the same.

A valid complaint from a minority of the consumer base. Be as unrealistic as you want Melissia, but female minorities are not a large consumer base for FPS games.

ESA stats:

•68 percent of American households play computer or video games.
•The average age of game players is 35 years old.

•25 percent of game players are under 18 years of age, 49 percent are 18 to 49 and 26 percent are 50+ years old.
•60 percent of game players are male. However, women age 18 or older represent 34 percent of the game-playing population -- much more than boys 17 or younger, who constitute 18 percent.
•The average age of the most frequent game buyer is 39 years old.
•48 percent of game purchasers are female.
•12 is the average number of years adult gamers have been playing video games.
•62 percent of gamers play games with others in person. This is an increase from 59 percent in 2008 and from 56 percent in 2007.
•42 percent of homes in America have a video game console.

So 60% of game players are male while 48% of all games are bought by females. Does this mean that female gamers dominate 48% of the market, no. It means that 52% of all games are bought by males for their own enjoyment while another 8% of games are bought by females for a male player perhaps(moms or GFs buying gifts) although we can skew the numbers so that 34% of males buy games for their GFs or other female relations, the facts show that males tend to play games more than females.

I'm not being a mysogynist, I'm being realisticly grounded in demographics and statistics.

So have fun calling other people names because you feel inadequately represented in videogames, I'll laugh it off while I contribute to the 60% of my sex playing games and the 52% of my sex purchasing games.

You started off well, then you pulled statistics out of nowheree afterwards. Stick with actual proven statistics instead.

Just because a demographic is less than fifty percent (and yet, still only slightly less) does not mean that they should be completely ignored.

[edit: grr, can't type very well with my kitten constantly attacking my fingers...]

Gender: It's srs bizniz in videogames

Damn I should've made that into one of those newfangled motivational posters that the kids these days are always posting on the bingo hall's website!

metallifan wrote:Gender: It's srs bizniz in videogames

And IRL, too. If only it weren't, but it is.

That was sarcasm. You can't expect me (or, well, most people on the interwebs) to care about gender roles in video games. I'm certainly not spending my time playing a game thinking "This character should really be more in touch with his sensitive side" or "Why are there no female NPCs in this part?" or "Aw man, I don't wanna play a girl in THIS game!"

Oh, I know.

Melissia wrote:You started off well, then you pulled statistics out of your ass afterwards. Stick with actual proven statistics instead.

Just because a demographic is less than fifty percent (and yet, still only slightly less) does not mean that they should be completely ignored.

You serious bro?

I can't tell if you're the first female troll I've ever meant or seriously saying that.

Just saying, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

There's no law that says a company -can't- make -all- their games have female main characters. In fact, I'm sure such a company might even have a really big boost in getting more women to play games. But is such a company necessary?

Short answer: No.

Again, most people aren't actually sitting there, refusing to play a game because it has no female characters, or filtering out games because they don't do enough to represent women, etc...

Games are -just games-. That's it. They're not political issues unless people go out and find reasons to -make- them political issues. And those folks usually just need something to complain about because of some very, very deep underlying personal issues.

metallifan wrote:Just saying, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

There's no law that says a company -can't- make -all- their games have female characters. In fact, I'm sure such a company might even have a really big boost in getting more women to play games. But is such a company necessary?

Games themselves aren't necessary. But why does that mean that I should just be quiet, stop talking about it, and accept it?

I won't regardless of the reason why, but it seems peculiar how so many male gamers seem to expect me to do just that. To me, it is broken. So it needs to be fixed.

metallifan wrote:
Games are -just games-. That's it. They're not political issues unless people go out and find reasons to -make- them political issues. And those folks usually just need something to complain about because of some very, very deep underlying personal issues.

Ouch, that sounds like a melta burn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:I won't regardless of the reason why, but it seems peculiar how so many male gamers seem to expect me to do just that.

Because guys don't care? Remember your feminist training, guys are simple. We play games and has the fun while not care about story, hurr.

There's no "deep psychological issues", I just want to play as myself for once. I hardly think that is unreasonable.

Melissia wrote:There's no "deep psychological issues", I just want to play as myself for once. I hardly think that is unreasonable.

Call Activision and have them make "Melissia: Male Protagonist Destroyer" then, sheesh.

Melissia wrote:

metallifan wrote:Gender: It's srs bizniz in videogames

And IRL, too. If only it weren't, but it is.

Don't blame the industry, the industry exists to serve the demographic customers it has, not attempt to cultivate new ones at cost and with questionable results. If more females played games that were oriented towards male audiences (action titles, shooters, etc) then they would orient such games more towards female demographics. They don't however, so they don't stand to profit from being inclusive. Its a for profit industry, not a social project. You want more mirrors edge games then try and make mirrors edge not be a sales failure. If you want less call of duties then don't buy the call of duties (I didn't buy World at war or black ops because I dislike both games directions).

Thats about all there is to the story. The industry isn't sexist, it's just not a charity.

I think there's a point where incessant complaining gets tiring, but there's also a point where the constant shutdown of female opinions becomes even sadder and dare I say borderline misogynistic?

At some point some you guys should take a step back and tone down the wimminz hate. Maybe it isn't apparent in this topic but it's an alarming trend We're all grown ups right? Can't we get past the "eww she has cooties!" stage and be a bit more egalitarian? Of course there needs to be some sort of moderation on the other side so that legitamate complaints don't devolve into whiny soap-boxing.

In summation everyone keep it real, cool your jets, and don't be so afraid of feminism.

asimo77 wrote:I think there's a point where incessant complaining gets tiring, but there's also a point where the constant shutdown of female opinions becomes even sadder and dare I say borderline misogynistic?

At some point some you guys should take a step back and tone down the wimminz hate. Maybe it isn't apparent in this topic but it's an alarming trend We're all grown ups right? Can't we get past the "eww she has cooties!" stage and be a bit more egalitarian? Of course there needs to be some sort of moderation on the other side so that legitamate complaints don't devolve into whiny soap-boxing.

In summation everyone keep it real, cool your jets, and don't be so afraid of feminism.

Please note who you're speaking of when posting posts like that.

Oh I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, it's just every now and then a "women in games" topic pops up and there's always some disheartening things here and there.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

metallifan wrote:Gender: It's srs bizniz in videogames

And IRL, too. If only it weren't, but it is.

Don't blame the industry, the industry exists to serve the demographic customers it has

And it's failing.

The industry HAS female customers. A sizable portion of them. And it isn't serving them very well.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:

metallifan wrote:Gender: It's srs bizniz in videogames

And IRL, too. If only it weren't, but it is.

Don't blame the industry, the industry exists to serve the demographic customers it has

And it's failing.

The industry HAS female customers. A sizable portion of them. And it isn't serving them very well.

It's the largest media industry that exists and it's rapidly growing. It's not failing, you just wish it was. That sizeable portion is being served to with nintendogs, angry birds, bejeweled and world of warcraft. You're mixing demographics around and applying them to titles you like, not titles that actually have a statistically meaningful female following.

The industry growing and yet still not fulfilling its customer's desires are not mutually exclusive.

Melissia wrote:The industry growing and yet still not fulfilling its customer's desires are not mutually exclusive.

Having a comparatively small female gamer population and having blockbuster games that do not cater to the female audience is not inherently causative.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:The industry growing and yet still not fulfilling its customer's desires are not mutually exclusive.

Having a comparatively small female gamer population and having blockbuster games that do not cater to the female audience is not inherently causative.

Fourty percent of a multi-billion dollar industry is not small.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:The industry growing and yet still not fulfilling its customer's desires are not mutually exclusive.

Having a comparatively small female gamer population and having blockbuster games that do not cater to the female audience is not inherently causative.

Fourty percent of a multi-billion dollar industry is not small.

And AAA titles do not make up 100% of the market. Facebook games are in that statistic, as are portables. Farmville makes more money then call of duty. Post your statistics or don't use them.

ShumaGorath wrote:Post your statistics or don't use them.

Don't be a hypocrite.

If you want my sources, that's easy. The ESA lists fourty percent of gamers-- not customers-- female. For the multi-billion dollar industry, here is one source. Twenty billion dollars a year. Three of the top ten selling games that year were xbox games. Modern Warfare 2 earned one billion dollars in worldwide sales alone. Zynga, the producers of Farmville, earn approximately 240 to 260 million a year in comparison, depending on who you ask it could vary, but not one estimate exceeds what the AAA titles make and how many copies they sell. Google's 100 million contribution to Zynga was a huge thing for them. That would have been maybe one tenth of what a SINGLE AAA game made.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:The industry growing and yet still not fulfilling its customer's desires are not mutually exclusive.

Having a comparatively small female gamer population and having blockbuster games that do not cater to the female audience is not inherently causative.

Fourty percent of a multi-billion dollar industry is not small.

But 60% is much larger.

halonachos wrote:But 60% is much larger.

Not really.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:But 60% is much larger.

Not really.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:But 60% is much larger.

Not really.

She has a point, though; piss off 40% of your playerbase, and it's going to seriously hurt your sales.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Post your statistics or don't use them.

Don't be a hypocrite.

If you want my sources, that's easy. The ESA lists fourty percent of gamers-- not customers-- female. For the multi-billion dollar industry, here is one source. Twenty billion dollars a year. Three of the top ten selling games that year were xbox games. Modern Warfare 2 earned one billion dollars in worldwide sales alone. Zynga, the producers of Farmville, earn approximately 240 to 260 million a year in comparison, depending on who you ask it could vary, but not one estimate exceeds what the AAA titles make and how many copies they sell. Google's 100 million contribution to Zynga was a huge thing for them. That would have been maybe one tenth of what a SINGLE AAA game made.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703515504576142693408473796.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEADTop

Thats interesting when zynga is worth roughly 7-9 billion dollarsr. For making 260 million dollars a year and for existing four years, they sure are worth roughly 30 times that amount. I'm sure googles 100 million was really a huge thing to them. If my company got 1.4% bigger I would be honored. You should perhaps be a bit more careful when searching for financial information online in regards to the net worth of companies that have recently been in the wall street journal, forbes, and business week. It's best not to use a year old article with no sources as your "statistics".

You also didn't post the relevant statistic of 40% of gamers being women, nor did you attempt to explain any of the demographic specifics of what constitutes a gamer within that statistic. I'm pretty sure you either don't have such information of you're aware that it skews towards the highly profitable but typically maligned casual game or MMO sphere where there is semi parity between genders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slarg232 wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:But 60% is much larger.

Not really.

She has a point, though; piss off 40% of your playerbase, and it's going to seriously hurt your sales.

Except she'd be lucky if 5% of call of duty sales were to women gamers and she refuses to post the statistics that she's citing.

Melissia wrote:Considering I've met people who honestly believe most of those things, I'm not so sure.

Deldar?

Gauiz, intarwebz is surius bizznizzes.

Edit: I think I may have encountered a time warp, but I'm going to leave this here...

This "40% of gamers are women" is notorious on Dakka by now. Because there have already been at least five arguments over it already. As such, it's starting to become a real headache for me. As far as has been shown by the belligerents in these arguments, that figure doesn't represent anything of merit regarding the FPS genre. The claim that a game company ought to better serve 40% of its customers is fine -- but as it turns out, the company in question seems to do a pretty damn good job at serving its ACTUAL customers. So far, I've seen no statistic that leads me to believe 40% of all gamers -- and I'm not talking about Nintendogs and Farmville here -- are female. Anecdotally, I believe that notion is absurd.

Manchu wrote:This "40% of gamers are women" is notorious on Dakka by now. Because there have already been at least five arguments over it already. As such, it's starting to become a real headache for me. As far as has been shown by the belligerents in these arguments, that figure doesn't represent anything of merit regarding the FPS genre. The claim that a game company ought to better serve 40% of its customers is fine -- but as it turns out, the company in question seems to do a pretty damn good job at serving its ACTUAL customers. So far, I've seen no statistic that leads me to believe 40% of all gamers -- and I'm not talking about Nintendogs and Farmville here -- are female. Anecdotally, I believe that notion is absurd.

Funny, I haven't seen anyone who made such a claim provide statistics to actually prove it. It's empty speculation based off of preconceptions which themselves aren't based in fact. I have never said fourty percent of FPS gamers are female, because I haven't seen such a statistic.

But I can say that the split between male and female social gamers is roughly equal.



Hmm, so 55 percent female, 45 percent male when it comes to social gaming. Not quite as big a lead as people want to try to claim is it now? This "all female gamers play farmville" crap is just that-- crap. Because it was pulled right out of someone's soiled underpants.

edit: Ugh, I cannot type this morning... and apparently I misread the second source, which was discussing things such as whether they play with friends or with strangers, or how often they play, instead of the differences between genders. Redacting, because I need to get some tea...

Urm Melissia that is based on people who play games on social websites such as facebook, not actual games.

Yes, because the topic of social gamers is constantly brought up and I wanted to post statistics on the demographics of social gamers to show that it is not exclusively female despite the screaming of people on this forum that all female gamers play social games such as farmville.

As for other countries, in Germany, it's 52/48, in France it's 46/54, and in the UK it's 59/41 for the demographics of a social gamer (Female/Male in each case).

Melissia wrote:Yes, because the topic of social gamers is constantly brought up and I wanted to post statistics on the demographics of social gamers to show that it is not exclusively female despite the screaming of people on this forum that all female gamers play social games such as farmville.

While it is obviously not true that all female gamers play social games your statistics were totally irrelevant to that, you just showed that not all social gamers are female instead of not all female gamers are social.

Just to be clear I am on your side, just pointing out that that graph was mostly pointless.

... yes, I showed that not only not all of social gamers were such, but female social gamers in the US were only a 55% majority. You know, exactly what I claimed it showed, if you had read my post?

Furthermore:
http://www.next-gen.biz/news/npd-44-per-cent-of-current-gen-console-users-are-female
(remember that one can be a social gamer and still play hardcore games at the same time)

Annoyingly enough, this was the only source I could find, unlike the data for social gaming where several sources said pretty much the same thing give or take four or five percentage points...

Again thanks for all the comments I have borrowed black ops from a friend to see if it is actually such a big improvement, though he says it is not really that much of an improvement, will psot when I play it

Hopefully you'll enjoy it.

There are sometimes that even after all these years, the internet can surprise me. This is one of those times.

I'm shocked by the amount of backlash to the simple statement "Main protagonists in video games are disproportionately white males."

That is true. Video games (and TV shows and movies and just about all other media you can think of) over-represent white males as the strong characters. This leads to re-enforcing our already present prejudices.

It doesn't matter what the gamer demographics are. Media should advocate diversity (gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs, and everything else you can think of). Representing people as equals is a good thing.

Whether or not gamers are mostly male is a moot point. Unless you're actively saying you'd be upset by having to play as a female or minority.

I think things have been getting better in recent years. There's some genres that still need improvement. FPS is one of those (although, I can see the argument for historical games to have combatants be all male).

- Most people who play social games are female.

This was never in question. It's another red herring. Just because you, the poster Melissia, bring up a point doesn't make it relevant to the discussion. It certainly does not address the point that "all female gamers play farmville," which itself wasn't a point anyone was making. The point was: "less than 40% of the people who play Call of Duty are female." As I already admitted, this is merely anecdotal. I assume that if you had a statistic to prove me wrong, it would have already been posted. As it is, I'm presented with an off-topic graph?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:Media should advocate diversity (gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs, and everything else you can think of).

=/=

Representing people as equals is a good thing.

I'm left wondering what social iniquity results from the predominance of white male protagonists. "Well, it's, you know, not . . . um . . . fair?"

Whether or not gamers are mostly male is a moot point.

Well, not when the subject is whether or not a company is serving its demographic . . .

Manchu wrote:I assume that if you had a statistic to prove me wrong, it would have already been posted. As it is, I'm presented with an off-topic graph?

I never made any claim about which percentage of people who bought CoD were either gender. You have done that, pulling a random guess out of nowhere based off of nothing, which is worth about the same. I'm not the one making claims about things which I have not done the research on.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:I assume that if you had a statistic to prove me wrong, it would have already been posted. As it is, I'm presented with an off-topic graph?

I never made any claim about which percentage of people who bought CoD were either gender. You have done that, pulling a random guess out of nowhere based off of nothing, which is worth about the same. I'm not the one making claims about things which I have not done the research on.

I guess I must have missed your point, which I had thought was that the gaming industry was failing because it ignores a significant portion (slightly less than 50%) of its customers, i.e. females.

Melissia wrote:Just because a demographic is less than fifty percent (and yet, still only slightly less) does not mean that they should be completely ignored.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Don't blame the industry, the industry exists to serve the demographic customers it has

And it's failing.

The industry HAS female customers. A sizable portion of them. And it isn't serving them very well.

OH WAIT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID. I can understand if you don't want to read and understand my posts but it bugs me that you won't even acknowledge your own posts.

The closest I've found is this:


http://mentalshaman.com/2010/08/25/games-demographics/
Halo 3, Call of Duty 4, and Gears of War are in the top five for the most played on xbox live for both genders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:[I guess I must have missed your point, which I had thought was that the gaming industry was failing because it ignores a significant portion (slightly less than 50%) of its customers, i.e. females.

Yes, and that has anything at all to do with what you said about CoD? Oh wait, nothing.

Melissia wrote:Yes, and that has anything at all to do with what you said about CoD? Oh wait, nothing.

Those are my shoes you are pissing on. And, no, I don't believe you when you tell me it's raining. Here's a brief selection of your posts that show how that has everything to do with CoD (remember that we're posting in a thread about CoD?):

Melissia wrote:For myself, the problem I have is that every main character for these games is a generic military (or ex-military) white boy, usually with interchangeable personalities (if they had any).

Melissia wrote:How many good FPS games have you seen with playable female characters in single player... or for that matter, multiplayer? Or playable Black, Oriental, Native American, Hispanic, Middle-Eastern characters...

Yes, it's a marketing decision, that doesn't make my complaint any less valid.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:But your complaint isn't an issue with the game perse so much as an issue with western media economics in general.

In the end, the result is the same.

You have a problem with the kind of protagonists that you're forced to play in FPS games -- like call of duty. But it's not just a matter of personal preference. You indicate very clearly here that the problem is one of gender/ethnic equality on an industry-wide, even economy-wide, scale. As you see it (see me quoting YOU above), some amount of people who play games -- including CoD -- which is slightly less than 50% are female. The fact that the entire industry (or economy) is catering to the patriarchy by forcing you to play as a white, male protagonist indicates to you that a large protion of customers for CoD are not being served and therefore the industry is failing. Not only are the morally/ethically failing, they are practically failing. Whatever the truth of the former claim, it cannot be conflated -- as you are in fact doing, as seen here in your own words above -- with the second claim. If the two are connected, then it's perfectly fine to force everyone to play white male protagonists. Because it is TREMENDOUSLY successful.

Manchu wrote:Because it is TREMENDOUSLY successful.

To invoke Godwin's law before I head out to class... so were nazis for a few years. Doesn't make it right nor does it mean that they are fairly representing all of the population.

I have provided sources, facts, and statistics to support my position. where are yours?

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Because it is TREMENDOUSLY successful.

To invoke Godwin's law before I head out to class... so were nazis for a few years. Doesn't make it right nor does it mean that they are fairly representing all of the population.

No one is saying it makes it right. That's exactly the distinction I just made. But to say that the industry is failing financially because of its social narrowness is flat out wrong, as Shuma pointed out. Nothing you've posted since (your "sources, facts, and statistics") indicates otherwise. In the meantime, you have presented no coherent argument that there is a problem with the video games industry not "fairly representing all of the population." As I said to Grakmar, "so what?" It's not to say that there is no problem -- it's to say that the problem isn't really apparent. We're talking about designing and selling video games, not running a government after all.

"I'm left wondering what social iniquity results from the predominance of white male protagonists. "Well, it's, you know, not . . . um . . . fair?""

I'm guessing you're white which is probably why you don't get it. CURSE YOU WHITE PEOPLE AND YOUR RACIAL HEGEMONY!!!!!

ITT: 40% of women gamers complaing, 60% of men gamers argue back

Not being white or male is not an excuse for refusing to be articulate.

Manchu wrote:[snip]But to say that the industry is failing financially.

I never said that.

Where is the failing?

In serving its female customers.

Capitalism is not a perfect system, and even if it was we don't live in a perfectly capitalist society. So success does not indicate that a company that succeeds has truly provided good service to its customers, to one or all, only that they provided a service which was desired and the pricing of said service was profitable. Microsoft comes to mind.

Absolutely. But consider what insight you're actually offering here. It's like saying that people to whom pizza is not marketed are served poorly by the pizza industry. That's very different from saying that the only peoplpe to whom pizza is marketed are people who like it, ergo those not well served are not interested. There are certainly female gamers who like FPSs even if they aren't the target of marketing FPSs. Now, although capitalism is not perfect I would say that it depends on a high degree of rational decision making. People who market pizza want to reach the largest possible group of people who might be interested in pizza as cheaply as possible. It seems reasonable to me that game publishers have the same attitude about marketing FPSs. The feeling that some women have of being excluding from the marketing is, in their rational calculation, a reasonable loss.

Now, before you say it, I know that doesn't make your complaint less valid. On the other hand, it doesn't make your complaint any more valid, either. What we are left with is someone who wants a company to act according to her preferences. That's fine but it doesn't indicate anything about anything: all consumers want providers of goods and services to meet their expectations. There may well be a group of people who want pizza with peanut butter on it but if marketing that product stands a reasonable chance of cutting into what is already making money, it's not going to happen. You don't have a right to peanut butter pizza or FPSs with female leads.

And therein lies the problem. I'm not sure that you really accept that this isn't your right.

Melissia wrote:In serving its female customers.

Capitalism is not a perfect system, and even if it was we don't live in a perfectly capitalist society. So success does not indicate that a company that succeeds has truly provided good service to its customers, to one or all, only that they provided a service which was desired and the pricing of said service was profitable. Microsoft comes to mind.

Any specific microsoft service or platform? A comparison to windows doesn't bare out at all since one was a practical monopoly for a decade, but they sell plenty of other software systems. This are the kinds of blank comparisons and advocations that muddle your points.

ShumaGorath wrote:This are the kinds of blank comparisons and advocations that muddle your points.

I just want to get down to what the points really are.

Why shouldn't I accept that I have a right as a customer to complain if the services given are not what I desire?

Melissia wrote:Why shouldn't I accept that I have a right as a customer to complain if the services given are not what I desire?

You have every right, just don't present your view as an industry failing that is endemic of a sexist, racist or chauvinistic system when doing so. It confuses things.

Or maybe you should try actually READING my posts instead of a strawman of them.

You're the only one in this thread that has said anything about sexism. And I never claimed any company is financially failing despite what you and Manchu falsely claim about my posts. Stop trying to troll and actually read the posts you're responding to.

This whole arguement is based of the false assumption that 100% of male gamers only want to play as male characters and refuse to play as females and also that 100% of female players want to play as females.
That's simply not true. There are many guys who pick the female avatar first.
Now the reasons for this are various but lets not kid ourselves its mostly because they think "she's hot" but the point remains the male demographic is not deterred by a female lead.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:This whole arguement is based of the false assumption that 100% of male gamers only want to play as male characters and refuse to play as females and also that 100% of female players want to play as females.
That's simply not true. There are many guys who pick the female avatar first.
Now the reasons for this are various but lets not kid ourselves its mostly because they think "she's hot" but the point remains the male demographic is not deterred by a female lead.

There are many perverts who pick the female avatar first*

Honestly though? I couldn't give less of a crap even if I was playing as a Space para trooper Pigmy hermaphrodite.

Soladrin wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:This whole arguement is based of the false assumption that 100% of male gamers only want to play as male characters and refuse to play as females and also that 100% of female players want to play as females.
That's simply not true. There are many guys who pick the female avatar first.
Now the reasons for this are various but lets not kid ourselves its mostly because they think "she's hot" but the point remains the male demographic is not deterred by a female lead.

There are many perverts who pick the female avatar first*

Honestly though? I couldn't give less of a crap even if I was playing as a Space para trooper Pigmy hermaphrodite.

me neither. You don't even see yourself in CoD and most FPS.

Melissia wrote:Or maybe you should try actually READING my posts instead of a strawman of them.

You're the only one in this thread that has said anything about sexism. And I never claimed any company is financially failing despite what you and Manchu falsely claim about my posts. Stop trying to troll and actually read the posts you're responding to.

I'll do that once you start giving coherent arguments that reflect reality, or at the very least stop misreading your own "statistics".

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Soladrin wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:This whole arguement is based of the false assumption that 100% of male gamers only want to play as male characters and refuse to play as females and also that 100% of female players want to play as females.
That's simply not true. There are many guys who pick the female avatar first.
Now the reasons for this are various but lets not kid ourselves its mostly because they think "she's hot" but the point remains the male demographic is not deterred by a female lead.

There are many perverts who pick the female avatar first*

Honestly though? I couldn't give less of a crap even if I was playing as a Space para trooper Pigmy hermaphrodite.

me neither. You don't even see yourself in CoD and most FPS.

Yeah you do. And you hear them too, which is more important in an FPS game.

Soladrin wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Honestly though? I couldn't give less of a crap even if I was playing as a Space para trooper Pigmy hermaphrodite.

HeHe i love the way that threads can end up with random stuff like this

corpsesarefun wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:@ Melissia: Do you really think having a female avatar will help you enjoy a game more, or relate to the character more?

Think? From long time eperience in playing games,. I KNOW it to be true.

Mass Effect wouldn't have been as good if everyone was stuck with the exact same Shepard. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 was so much better for its customization. The good RPGs such as Neverwinter Nights and the TES series, or MMORPGs have character customization as an important feature that the game would not be as good without it. Perhaps the one saving grace of Combat Arms is its character customization. Halo Reach's customization is pretty popular too I should note, with its female avatar being quit common and it would be a lesser game without said feature.

Does physical appearance really make that much of a difference to you in something mainly first person?.

Yes it is important, as it defines who you are playing as-- but more important in an FPS game is voice and audio.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Neverwinter Nights

Say what?

Neverwinter Nights, and its various expansions (and its sequel), was AWESOME and you suck as a human being if you think otherwise.

Jokes aside, yes, I do quite seriously include NWN as a prime example of a good RPG. I'd have said Might and Magic in its stead if the game's latest iteration didn't end up in development hell and get released before it could even be properly classified as a beta. V:TM Bloodlines was released in beta as well, but at least it was finished enough that a fan patch was enough to solve its problem.

Jokes aside, yes, I do quite seriously include NWN as a prime example of a good RPG. I'd have said Might and Magic in its stead if the game's latest iteration didn't end up in development hell and get released before it could even be properly classified as a beta. V:TM Bloodlines was released in beta as well, but at least it was finished enough that a fan patch was enough to solve its pro

The games pretty well recognized in critical circles of being an example of what happens when you sacrifice everything (graphics, voice acting, plot, characterization, setting, gameplay, etc) in order to have total freedom in character creation (though really, thats not something 3.0 DND could do anyway). It hasn't held up nearly as well as it's competitors.

Melissia wrote:Think? From long time eperience in playing games,. I KNOW it to be true.

Mass Effect wouldn't have been as good if everyone was stuck with the exact same Shepard. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 was so much better for its customization. The good RPGs such as Neverwinter Nights and the TES series, or MMORPGs have character customization as an important feature that the game would not be as good without it. Perhaps the one saving grace of Combat Arms is its character customization. Halo Reach's customization is pretty popular too I should note, with its female avatar being quit common and it would be a lesser game without said feature.

I meant in terms of having a character set in stone that was female. Again, there are plenty of games where you can customize your character, and play as whatever you damn well please. However, most FPS games (as well as mostly any game that's not an RPG) have set characters, and any 'relation' you might have between you and your character is completely lost when a game uses this model, no matter their gender.

Ask yourself, honestly, how much can you relate to:




Or



Or



Or



You don't have anything in common, aside from being the same gender, do you? There's a taste of what it's like to be in the 'Target demographic'. It's completely meaningless. You might get a bit of a sense of 'gender empowerment', but that also becomes completely meaningless once you realize how over-the-top and ridiculous videogames tend to be.

Honestly, it's not something worth fighting for. Character customization is good for when you feel the need to play your own persona, but the race or gender of a set protagonist will never really matter, because you will never have much of a chance to relate to them at all.

Melissia wrote:

Chrysaor686 wrote:@ Melissia: Do you really think having a female avatar will help you enjoy a game more, or relate to the character more?

Think? From long time eperience in playing games,. I KNOW it to be true.

Mass Effect wouldn't have been as good if everyone was stuck with the exact same Shepard. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 was so much better for its customization. The good RPGs such as Neverwinter Nights and the TES series, or MMORPGs have character customization as an important feature that the game would not be as good without it. Perhaps the one saving grace of Combat Arms is its character customization. Halo Reach's customization is pretty popular too I should note, with its female avatar being quit common and it would be a lesser game without said feature.

The Female Avatar is so popular because the thirteen year olds won't kill you while saying "MY SNIPER, BITCH!'" when you pick up the weapon.

I don't have any experiance in this field. None whatsoever. Nope.


Don't look at me like that......

Every Shepherd, regardless of what gender, facial features, or even what "choices" you make, is the same one.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Ask yourself, honestly, how much can you relate to:

I know a girl who looks like that, and I relate pretty well to her

Chrysaor686 wrote:I meant in terms of having a character set in stone that was female.

How many of those have there been? I can probably count them on just my digits as far as FPS games go.

But yes, I related better to Faith Connors than I did to Preston Marlowe. Sure she's far more physically capable than I am but she's still a more interesting character than Mr. Generic McBlandyface Soldierdude #76174959.

Ask yourself, honestly, how much can you relate to:
http://images.wikia.com/residentevil/images/a/a0/929198_20080820_screen010.jpg

I'll do you one better.



A bit of a nerd about zombie flicks, but otherwise a relatively normal college girl. I relate quite damned well to Zoey. Funny how she is the most popular Left 4 Dead character....

Chrysaor686 wrote:Honestly, it's not something worth fighting for.

Bullgak to your entire last paragraph.

Manchu wrote:Every Shepherd, regardless of what gender, facial features, or even what "choices" you make, is the same one.

Dat don' make no sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

A bit of a nerd about zombie flicks, but otherwise a relatively normal college girl. I relate quite damned well to Zoey. Funny how she is the most popular Left 4 Dead character....

Considering all four characters are mandatory in every single game of left 4 dead I'd like to see how you can really support that position.

You still choose who you play as.

As far as her being the most popular, that was proven by a poll given by Valve.

Melissia wrote:You still choose who you play as.

As far as her being the most popular, that was proven by a poll given by Valve.

I'd like to see how you can really support that position.

Melissia wrote:How many of those have there been? I can probably count them on just my digits as far as FPS games go.

But yes, I related better to Faith Connors than I did to Preston Marlowe. Sure she's far more physically capable than I am but she's still a more interesting character than Mr. Generic McBlandyface Soldierdude #76174959.

Not many, to be honest. But, speaking from experience as the 'target demographic', a character with a well-defined backstory generally doesn't resonate well with anyone, because they have their own personality, beliefs, and abilities. There may be a select few people that relate to the character well, but finding those people would be akin to finding a needle in a haystack. Out of all of the white male protagonists in any videogame ever made, I relate with maybe two of them on any meaningful level whatsoever. Keep in mind that I'm one of the 'lucky ones' who gets games built around 'my interests', so I'm more likely to buy them.

Faith Connors may be a far more interesting character than Preston Marlowe (I don't think anyone would argue with you on that point), but how can you possibly relate to her better? Are you an asian mail-carrying parkour runner with an intricate knowledge of aikido? I'm going to go with 'no' on this one, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll do you one better.



A bit of a nerd about zombie flicks, but otherwise a relatively normal college girl. I relate quite damned well to Zoey. Funny how she is the most popular Left 4 Dead character....

Again, I'd like to ask how you relate to her on any level. I see no measure of 'normal college girl' evidenced anywhere in the game, even in the miscellaneous banter. She spends most of her time yelling 'Smoker!' and 'Medkit over here!', just like the rest of the cast of Left 4 Dead. However, she also seems to be the generic of all the characters; at least Bill, Francis, and Louis have some sort of aspect to their personalities that make them memorable (Okay, maybe not Bill. feth Bill).

The reason she is so popular is solely because she is female. Rabid adolescent males, and any number of female gamers, eat that gak up. However, she is one of the most realistically portrayed females I can think of (Right behind Heather from Silent Hill 3), so I guess that's a plus.

If you do honestly relate to her somehow, then you should feel very lucky. Most of us don't have any videogame character we can honestly relate to whatsoever.

Bullgak to your entire last paragraph.

Why? It's the truth, spoken from someone who's been bombarded with these idiotic marketing tactics all his life. Characters with set personalities are almost impossible to relate to, no matter their race or gender.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Manchu wrote:Every Shepherd, regardless of what gender, facial features, or even what "choices" you make, is the same one.

Dat don' make no sense.

After being frustrated and disappointed with trying to make my Shepherd, and having the rest of my ME2 experience suffer for it, I just happened to look at the cover of the game. There, front and center, was a shot of Shepherd. It dawned on me that his face was in perfect detail and I pulled out my copy of ME, where he has a face but it is ambiguous/generic. (I also thought back to my days as Revan in KotOR and realized that all the scenes depicting Darth Revan had him/her wearing a mask that totally obscured her/his face -- I realized that this wasn't just a way of realizing a plot twist.) It became apparent to me that Shepherd is not really a customizable character at all. He's just extremely generic in regard to himself. Think of it: his experience as a character does not differ significantly according to what kind of training he has. One would think that someone of primarily technical knowledge would act differently than someone trained as a soldier. But outside of combat, there is really no difference at all. The difference in outcome between paragon and renegade is also fairly equivalent. The ambivalence of Shepherd's choices is nowhere better portrayed than in the motion comic that catches you up to the PS3 version of ME2, where a hundred hours or more of gameplay -- allegedly replete with meaningful choices -- is summed up into five or so binary decisions. Even putting Shepherd into a woman's body does not really change who he is. The only actual change is that some romantic options open up where others are no longer available. And of course the romances are basically all the same as well.

Once I came to terms with this, I began to enjoy the game.

If you want to play a convincingly female character who is not just a male fantasy, play Lightning in FFXIII. Shepherd with boobs is not actually a woman.

Chrysaor686 wrote:Faith Connors may be a far more interesting character than Preston Marlowe (I don't think anyone would argue with you on that point), but how can you possibly relate to her better? Are you an asian mail-carrying parkour runner with an intricate knowledge of aikido? I'm going to go with 'no' on this one, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Her personality and the way she carries herself is easier to relate to. Her being female did help, mostly for the voices-- when I am doing an action in game, it helps immersion of that action is not accompanied by a low male grunt.

I see no measure of 'normal college girl' evidenced anywhere in the game

Try paying attention more.

Dunno about you, but I actually read the background material of a good game...

That almost blew my mind as much as realizing that Ed, Edd, and Eddy was an allegory for hell.

http://www.vizworld.com/2010/01/infographic-video-game-statistics/


I don't complain when I have to play as a female character because I'm in it for the gameplay. I don't play Bayonetta, not because I don't want to play a female version of Devil May Cry but because I don't play Devil May Cry either.

Other social media is dominated by a female audience, how many movies and TV shows portray males as idiotic sloths and women as sources of balance and restraint? How many show a sleazeball male getting his just desserts and the gentle, caring male as the ideal man?

Music is a gray area, there are a great deal of anti-woman music and a great deal of pro-woman music. Some put women on pedastals and others make them lick their boots.

Videogames are one of the rare instances when a man is portrayed somewhat positively the majority of the time and apparantly that's a no-no. I don't give two rat's rear ends about the gender of a character but when I have to endure another form of media that demeans males I may lose it.

If you also notice, men are also the antagonists in most games.

If you want to complain and want me to support the argument there needs to be an increase in the amount of female antagonists. A female Darth Vader, a female General Shephard, a female McEvillady, a female Hitler that a male protagonist gets to beat.

Argue for that and then maybe I'll board your 'equal representation' ideas.

halonachos wrote:If you also notice, men are also the antagonists in most games.

And that helps your point... how?

As for the rest of your rant, I hardly see that in the shows I watch, but I admit that I don't watch sitcoms, daytime drama shows, jerry springer, or anime very often, all of which tend to be the most sexist towards males. Personally I prefer to watch the CSIs, or to watch educational television such as PBS World. Regardless, in case you weren't paying attention the last time I explained about my position, feminism is the idea of equal treatment for women. One can't have equality between genders if one gender is treated better than the other-- regardless of if that gender is male or female.

Melissia wrote:Her personality and the way she carries herself is easier to relate to. Her being female did help, mostly for the voices-- when I am doing an action in game, it helps immersion of that action is not accompanied by a low male grunt.

While I can see your point about the level of immersion changing depending on whether or not you're playing as a female, I've never had a problem being immersed in a game with a female lead. It's simply a matter of placing yourself in your character's shoes, and from there on in, immersion is never a difficult thing to grasp. That's what you have to do anyway, as I've rarely seen a game where I can literally recreate myself (though I do try occasionally and almost always fail)

I guess immersion is more difficult for some people to achieve than others, and while that's unfortunate for you, I seriously doubt that 100% of the games you play will ever have purely female protagonists, no matter how drastically the industry changes. So, it's kind of a moot point regardless.

Try paying attention more.

Dunno about you, but I actually read the background material of a good game...

That's one of the biggest problems I had with L4D. Almost all of the storyline information was relegated to outside sources. While the intentionally cryptic storytelling was nice, the fact that almost all of the provided information had to be found somewhere else was a terrible design decision. Absolutely awful.

Regardless, the point still stands that Zoey hardly ever had anything meaningful to contribute, and she was incredibly stoic for being in such a situation. She never once made me laugh (or even tried to), and rarely displayed any emotion unless she was in immediate danger. She was practically a Jane Doe.

At least Francis' blatant hatred of everything was entertaining, and the fact that Louis was literally about to piss his pants most of the time made me chuckle. Even if I hated Bill, his 'grizzled war veteran' appearance and demeanor at least made him a memorable character. Zoey was exceptionally average in every way; literally the only thing she had going for her was that she was the only female character.

Chrysaor686 wrote:While I can see your point about the level of immersion changing depending on whether or not you're playing as a female, I've never had a problem being immersed in a game with a female lead.

Maybe that's because it almost never actually happens.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:If you also notice, men are also the antagonists in most games.

And that helps your point... how?

As for the rest of your rant, I hardly see that in the shows I watch, but I admit that I don't watch sitcoms, daytime drama shows, jerry springer, or anime very often, all of which tend to be the most sexist towards males. Personally I prefer to watch the CSIs, or to watch educational television such as PBS World. Regardless, in case you weren't paying attention the last time I explained about my position, feminism is the idea of equal treatment for women. One can't have equality between genders if one gender is treated better than the other-- regardless of if that gender is male or female.

Which is why I demand a female antagonist that a male protagonist can beat up.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:If you also notice, men are also the antagonists in most games.

And that helps your point... how?

As for the rest of your rant, I hardly see that in the shows I watch, but I admit that I don't watch sitcoms, daytime drama shows, jerry springer, or anime very often, all of which tend to be the most sexist towards males. Personally I prefer to watch the CSIs, or to watch educational television such as PBS World. Regardless, in case you weren't paying attention the last time I explained about my position, feminism is the idea of equal treatment for women. One can't have equality between genders if one gender is treated better than the other-- regardless of if that gender is male or female.

Which is why I demand a female antagonist that a male protagonist can beat up.

Ghost Widow in City of Heroes (any MMO will probably do). Aribeth in Neverwinter Nights. Plenty of antagonists in Bioshock and Left 4 dead, though I'm not sure about bosses in the former (it has been a while), but Witches are some of the most dangerous zombies out there, and there's female boomers, spitters, and female horde zombies, although there are in-universe reasons why these are a bit more rare they still exist.

Then there's:


But in the end I agree, there need to be more strong female villains just as there needs to be more strong (and playable) female PCs.

Melissia wrote:Maybe that's because it almost never actually happens.

Why would that make it any easier for me to place myself in the role of a female when I'm required to? That really doesn't make any sense.

There we go, more evil chicks in a game.

Does SHODAN count? Or GLADOS? In which case the ladies have some of the best villains. Japanese games seem to have women as villains more often I think, Ultimecia and Queen Zeal come to mind.

You've all raped this thread with your squabling over female characters in video games.

Call of duty hasn't been mentioned for pages and thats the thread topic. How many times has this 'discussion' happened before? If you want to talk about the great injustices done to female gamers then go start another thread about it.

Lord-Loss wrote:You've all raped this thread with your squabling over female characters in video games.

Call of duty hasn't been mentioned for pages and thats the thread topic. How many times has this 'discussion' happened before? If you want to talk about the great injustices done to female gamers then go start another thread about it.

Actually, we managed to shut out the 'thread hijack troll', and carry on with the discussion. if you didn't bother to carry on where we picked up, that's your problem.

Edit: -MOST- of us managed to shut out the 'thread hijack troll'. Sadly, 'most of us' is not an absolute.

halonachos wrote:There we go, more evil chicks in a game.

Already got you beat:





Also Mileena:

Manchu wrote:Every Shepherd, regardless of what gender, facial features, or even what "choices" you make, is the same one.

I don't play females in RPGs because I don't want to have romantic storylines with dudes. I know girls who are the same way.

Also, female Shepard is a better actor. Seriously, all of her cut scenes are better.

I play a variety of male and female characters in RPGs though that may be because when playing I don't try to recreate myself.

How did my topic about call of duty end up on gamer babes?

Because someone objected to something I said back in... page two.

This happens pretty frequently.

Wait, Alma's evil? I always thought she was more of a chaotic neutral.

So what about Call of Duty now, something about there being too many of them? Yeah, not too many CoDs but a lot of poor imitators that make it seem like its too much.

halonachos wrote:Wait, Alma's evil? I always thought she was more of a chaotic neutral.

Oh same here, but she is the Antagonist, and that is what most of the discussion was about. Probably shouldn't have quoted your post, sorry about that.

Though, the end of F.E.A.R. 2 does kind of point in the "Evil" direction, ya know?

Well mind rape is usually never a good thing I guess. But aren't there two Alma's or something like that? Little Alma is something and older Alma is another something, Little=good and older=rapist I think.

halonachos wrote:Well mind rape is usually never a good thing I guess. But aren't there two Alma's or something like that? Little Alma is something and older Alma is another something, Little=good and older=rapist I think.

Little Alma is her psychic manifestation, Older Alma is what she wants to be, Crone Alma is what she is, is how I always thought of it.

With Little Alma being girl in red dress, Older Alma being the one in the pictures, and Crone Alma being skin and bones with black eyes.

if thats how it actually is, I don't know, but that's how I always thought of it.

Its all very confusing now that there are three Alma's, next thing you know there'll be a baby Alma or something. Hmm, an evil baby... I want a game with an evil infant now and I don't mean like the ones in Dead Space I mean life-like babies being in charge of an evil group.

halonachos wrote:Its all very confusing now that there are three Alma's, next thing you know there'll be a baby Alma or something. Hmm, an evil baby... I want a game with an evil infant now and I don't mean like the ones in Dead Space I mean life-like babies being in charge of an evil group.

Quite possibly F.E.4.R., since this one is about Alma giving birth to her third child (I think they have said Son, but I am kind of hoping for a daughter. Between Fettel and Point Man, they have both kinds of male characters done, unless they want the new one to be stealthier with invisibility or something.....)

halonachos wrote:Its all very confusing now that there are three Alma's, next thing you know there'll be a baby Alma or something. Hmm, an evil baby... I want a game with an evil infant now and I don't mean like the ones in Dead Space I mean life-like babies being in charge of an evil group.

With a top hat and a monocole ofcourse.

Always been too afraid of F.E.A.R games to play one, i'm seriously freaked out by small children in horror games/films.

Lord-Loss wrote:

halonachos wrote:Its all very confusing now that there are three Alma's, next thing you know there'll be a baby Alma or something. Hmm, an evil baby... I want a game with an evil infant now and I don't mean like the ones in Dead Space I mean life-like babies being in charge of an evil group.

With a top hat and a monocole ofcourse.

Always been too afraid of F.E.A.R games to play one, i'm seriously freaked out by small children in horror games/films.

Really?

I admit Little Alma freaks me out, but Older Alma is the hotness. Crone Alma is kind of..... meh, though.


And honestly, there has only been one part in the F.E.A.R. series, in the first game, that has seriously scared me, every single time I play it, despite knowing it's there. You walk down a walkway, grab a ladder, your vision falters, Little Alma is right next to you, you think "Oh, I knew that was coming", climb down, and there is a dude RIGHT THERE WHEN YOU TURN AROUND.... and then he suddenly disappears.

Keeps me awake at night.

FEAR can be somewhat scary but it makes you more twitchy than anything else.

The PS3 got a special level which complicates things for me because people were trying to say that one of the Almas just watches, one is evil, and one is good.

I think people say that little Alma watches your character, the younger Alma tries to inhibit your character, and then the older Alma must try to help your character. Its something in that order.

halonachos wrote:I think people say that little Alma watches your character, the younger Alma tries to inhibit your character, and then the older Alma must try to help your character. Its something in that order.

I call bull on that.

In the Elementary School, Old Alma picks Beckett up, and then starts shying away from him, afterwhich Young Alma comes up and starts trying to seduce him. Little Alma isn't in that scene.

But no, it's definately all one Alma, different forms.

The Scene:

I mean that they're all one Alma but I call each form a separate one. But yeah she's not the nicest person in the world. You don't get to killer her though...

halonachos wrote:I mean that they're all one Alma but I call each form a separate one. But yeah she's not the nicest person in the world. You don't get to killer her though...

Oh, that I can agree with.

All I know is that in #3, I am definately joining her and Paxtons side, since that is supposed to be what you choose; Does Point Man estrange himself from his family, or does he take up his place in their circle of power.

Slarg232 wrote:

halonachos wrote:I mean that they're all one Alma but I call each form a separate one. But yeah she's not the nicest person in the world. You don't get to killer her though...

Oh, that I can agree with.

All I know is that in #3, I am definately joining her and Paxtons side, since that is supposed to be what you choose; Does Point Man estrange himself from his family, or does he take up his place in their circle of power.

I believe the correct answer is to nuke it from orbit.

halonachos wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:

halonachos wrote:I mean that they're all one Alma but I call each form a separate one. But yeah she's not the nicest person in the world. You don't get to killer her though...

Oh, that I can agree with.

All I know is that in #3, I am definately joining her and Paxtons side, since that is supposed to be what you choose; Does Point Man estrange himself from his family, or does he take up his place in their circle of power.

I believe the correct answer is to nuke it from orbit.

I don't know; Alma and Pointman already survived one in the first F.E.A.R.

WELL ITS DECIDED THEN. 70% of people think that the COD series has gone on for to long you money making b*****ds. Down with infinity ward, down with treyarch, down with call of duty

You mean seventy percent of people who voted in this forum.... which amounts to fifty something people.

stop ruining the moment

FiRe SuPeRiOrItY wrote:WELL ITS DECIDED THEN. 70% of people think that the COD series has gone on for to long you money making b*****ds. Down with infinity ward, down with treyarch, down with call of duty

Infinity Ward no longer exists and Treyarch is pretty good at what they do.

halonachos wrote:...and Treyarch is pretty good at what they do.

F-Bomb proliferation?

metallifan wrote:

halonachos wrote:...and Treyarch is pretty good at what they do.

F-Bomb proliferation?

That and gibbing, and zombies, and gibbing zombies.

Bah, Valve did gibbing zombies better.

Can't wait until episode 3!!!!!!!

Melissia wrote:Bah, Valve did gibbing zombies better.

Valve did good gibbering zombies, but I feel better killing a zombie that was once a communist or a nazi than one that was once a scientist at Black Mesa.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FiRe SuPeRiOrItY wrote:Can't wait until episode 3!!!!!!!

Didn't they do the episode thing so they could release shorter expansions faster, the operative word being 'faster'?

Whats wrong communism?

vaatbak wrote:Whats wrong communism?

Its red.

Touche

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:Bah, Valve did gibbing zombies better.

Valve did good gibbering zombies, but I feel better killing a zombie that was once a communist or a nazi than one that was once a scientist at Black Mesa.

I was talking about Left 4 Dead, which is THE zombie game that all these other zombie (mini)games wish they could be more like

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:Bah, Valve did gibbing zombies better.

Valve did good gibbering zombies, but I feel better killing a zombie that was once a communist or a nazi than one that was once a scientist at Black Mesa.

I was talking about Left 4 Dead, which is THE zombie game that all these other zombie (mini)games wish they could be more like

Its just funny that Treyarch took Left 4 Dead(a full game in its own rights) and said, "Hey we could make that into a mini-game.". They then did and the differences between the two aren't too bad.

Left 4 Dead has larger levels where you're supposed to escape to and an ending. Left 4 Dead also has special zombies like the Spitter, Tank, and head humper.

CoD Zombies has levels where you try to survive wave after wave of zombies with no ending(until you die of course). CoD Zombies has special zombies, but not the same quantity as Left 4 Dead.

Both have a variety of weapons, which you purchase in CoD and find in L4D. Both have a story although I personally prefer CoD's zombie story over L4D's due to the fact that Dawn of the Dead is more prevalent in current media than any movie featuring Nazi zombies(Dead Sno is one from Norway).

Both have a revive system and both have four characters(no doubt you like L4D simply due to the fact that one of them is a woman) that survive a zombie world.

So for Zombies being a minigame it comes pretty damn close to being a game in its own rights.

You realize that L4D has the same survival mode as well, right?

And a versus mode.

And plenty of other minigames in its own right with its weekly Mutations.

And so on and so forth. No, CoD:BO's zombie game doesn't compare. The only thing really that I like about it is the weapon selection, but even then most weapons become useless after a while anyway.

EDIT: You know what Melissia, we're never going to agree about these types of topics. I'm just going to go ahead and delete whatever argument I posted and call it off for the sake of the overall thread.

halonachos wrote:EDIT: You know what Melissia, we're never going to agree about these types of topics. I'm just going to go ahead and delete whatever argument I posted and call it off for the sake of the overall thread.

Now, now children.
Play nice...

halonachos wrote:

FiRe SuPeRiOrItY wrote:WELL ITS DECIDED THEN. 70% of people think that the COD series has gone on for to long you money making b*****ds. Down with infinity ward, down with treyarch, down with call of duty

Infinity Ward no longer exists and Treyarch is pretty good at what they do.

fething up the franchise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:You realize that L4D has the same survival mode as well, right?

And a versus mode.

And plenty of other minigames in its own right with its weekly Mutations.

And so on and so forth. No, CoD:BO's zombie game doesn't compare. The only thing really that I like about it is the weapon selection, but even then most weapons become useless after a while anyway.

Both zombie games are incredibly dissimilar, L4d is rambo and CoD is resident evil. You're arguing past each other and it's childish (also annoying).

ShumaGorath wrote:
Both zombie games are incredibly dissimilar, L4d is rambo and CoD is resident evil. You're arguing past each other and it's childish (also annoying).

You're annoying.

That's the first time I've ever heard of a comparison between CoD and resident Evil.

wow, time for some thread lockage methinks.

Come on, stop tossing around insults, we're just talking about CoD.

Melissia wrote:Come on, stop tossing around insults, we're just talking about CoD.

We can dig it.

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:Bah, Valve did gibbing zombies better.

Valve did good gibbering zombies, but I feel better killing a zombie that was once a communist or a nazi than one that was once a scientist at Black Mesa.

I was talking about Left 4 Dead, which is THE zombie game that all these other zombie (mini)games wish they could be more like

Eugh left 4 dead sucks.

It completely and utterly fails to capture the sense of hopelessness that would be present.

If I wasn't so damn tired I would go into a huge rant about how much I dislike that game and how it abuses zombies but I really cannot be bothered right now.

halonachos wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Both zombie games are incredibly dissimilar, L4d is rambo and CoD is resident evil. You're arguing past each other and it's childish (also annoying).

You're annoying.

That's the first time I've ever heard of a comparison between CoD and resident Evil.

Slow moving, low number of zombies, high health on enemies, very low ammo counts, very little health, dark mansions as settings, impossibly bad dialogue. This is both resident evil and CoD zombies.

Fast moving, near infinite ammo, high health, hordes of enemies mowed down, fun one liners, rapid indoor outdoor travel and lots of forest encounters, one shot kills aplenty. This is both Rambo and L4D.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:Bah, Valve did gibbing zombies better.

Valve did good gibbering zombies, but I feel better killing a zombie that was once a communist or a nazi than one that was once a scientist at Black Mesa.

I was talking about Left 4 Dead, which is THE zombie game that all these other zombie (mini)games wish they could be more like

Eugh left 4 dead sucks.

It completely and utterly fails to capture the sense of hopelessness that would be present.

If I wasn't so damn tired I would go into a huge rant about how much I dislike that game and how it abuses zombies but I really cannot be bothered right now.

I hope you realize zombies aren't real.

ShumaGorath wrote:Slow moving, low number of zombies, high health on enemies, very low ammo counts, very little health, dark mansions as settings, impossibly bad dialogue. This is both resident evil and CoD zombies.

There's a low ammo count for sure, but there can be a high level of zombies and they begin with low health. In the beginning a single melee attack can kill a zombie while later on it can take about 15 or so attacks. Little health, dark settings, and slow moving zombies I'll give you as well. Well, sometimes the zombies are slow and other times they run at you.

As far as dialogue goes they have some good one liners, especially Richtofen and Nikolai. You should check out the CoD wikia, they have most of the quotes there.

corpsesarefun wrote:It completely and utterly fails to capture the sense of hopelessness

Stop playing it on easy.

Melissia wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:It completely and utterly fails to capture the sense of hopelessness

Stop playing it on easy.

I think that he's alluring to the faint hope of rescue at the end of each level, even in The Sacrifice there was a hope at survival for three of the four survivors. CoD cheats this by not having a specific end for the levels, they end when you die and have no scripted ending other than that.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:It completely and utterly fails to capture the sense of hopelessness

Stop playing it on easy.

I think that he's alluring to the faint hope of rescue at the end of each level, even in The Sacrifice there was a hope at survival for three of the four survivors. CoD cheats this by not having a specific end for the levels, they end when you die and have no scripted ending other than that.

The inference that this is somehow "incorrect" or "anti zombie" is pretty off though.

I don't think they've made too many, but they really need to work on the Internet play. The server issues and lag with Black Ops is ridiculous.

Dear Treyarch, an AK-74u is not a submachinegun. Thank you.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:It completely and utterly fails to capture the sense of hopelessness

Stop playing it on easy.

I think that he's alluring to the faint hope of rescue at the end of each level, even in The Sacrifice there was a hope at survival for three of the four survivors. CoD cheats this by not having a specific end for the levels, they end when you die and have no scripted ending other than that.

... so don't play the campaign mode?

Play Survival.

On Expert Realism.

You're fethed and all you can do is take out as many of them as you can before you die.

I cannot believe l4d is being even compared to cod zombies, cod zombies is just a mini game while l4d is a game in its own right.

Lasting merely ten minutes is considered extremely skilled.

Left for Dead is more fun. Is there even a debate on that?

I think it is possible to do more great CoD games they have to be done better than the previous title Black ops.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Left for Dead is more fun. Is there even a debate on that?

Yes there is, I much prefer Nazi Zombies over L4D. I like the confined territory choked with zombies more when you can't escape it. They can improve it though, Ascension showed us that, speaking of Ascension it finally came out on PS3.

halonachos wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Left for Dead is more fun. Is there even a debate on that?

Yes there is, I much prefer Nazi Zombies over L4D. I like the confined territory choked with zombies more when you can't escape it.

Once again, as usual, you're ignoring survival mode in L4D. Try playing the game...

Melissia wrote:

halonachos wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Left for Dead is more fun. Is there even a debate on that?

Yes there is, I much prefer Nazi Zombies over L4D. I like the confined territory choked with zombies more when you can't escape it.

Once again, as usual, you're ignoring survival mode in L4D. Try playing the game...

Or I could continue play Nazi Zombies which is a survival mode game instead of wasting time playing L4D's survival mode.

No it's not. It's a survival mode minigame to the CoD main game. Only not as good.

Melissia wrote:No it's not. It's a survival mode minigame to the CoD main game. Only not as good.

I prefer the easter eggs included in the Zombie mode as well.

halonachos wrote:

Melissia wrote:No it's not. It's a survival mode minigame to the CoD main game. Only not as good.

I prefer the easter eggs included in the Zombie mode as well.

Easter Eggs?......

WHAT DID THOSE BASTARDS DO TO THE EASTER BUNNY?!?

You know what I mean, the easter eggs you find in the maps. The radios are a favorite while the portraits are something else.

Acension is a great map and I have to admit I prefer playing it over L4D2, even if they are totally different.

I prefer the easter eggs in the version.

"God is dead? OH NO! ZOMBIES KILLED GOD!"

Melissia wrote:I prefer the easter eggs in the version.

"God is dead? OH NO! ZOMBIES KILLED GOD!"

Wait, what? Is this from anything?

Finally got Ascension, stupid adding funds system wasn't working, huge map and easy to get lost over and over again. The landers make it fun too, maybe even a bit better than the teleporters.

One of the Characters in L4D says it when you see "God is Dead!" written on a wall.


It's good for a little chuckle. Not what I'd call an Easter Egg though.

Don't know, is it easy to find? If so then its not an easter egg its just a set piece. The easter eggs in Zombies are mostly difficult to find(like finding three pieces of meteorite or three teddy bears to get music) or activating various things(fly trap in Der Riese, tapes in Kino der Toten, the whole Death Machine process in Ascension) and of course the dialogue is good too. Richtofen, Nikolai, and Dempsey have some good ones, Takeo not so much.

"My gun is empty, just like Dempsey's head." is probably his best one.

True, it's not really an easter eg. I suppose the lambda symbol shaved into the biker's head is more of one, but even then...

halonachos: You consider THAT hard to find? I see the standards for gamers have slipped in the twenty years I've been gaming now.

Francis has a Lamda symbol on his head? Where?

Melissia wrote:

Them sneaky snakes, I never noticed that

what's the meaning of it?

The 'Lambda' is what they had emblazoned all over the Half-Life games

Meh, I don't really care. The more they release, the quicker their downfall.

L4D is boring and too repetitive IMHO.

Also, OT, but Final Fantasy is worse then CoD in how many there are.

Battle Brother Lucifer wrote:Also, OT, but Final Fantasy is worse then CoD in how many there are.

True, but at least Fantasy isn't shelling out a game every 6 months.

Ha just returned to dakka dakka after a long break from it and have like 200 something replies to this post

FiRe SuPeRiOrItY wrote:Ha just returned to dakka dakka after a long break from it and have like 200 something replies to this post

Welcome back mr necromancer.

It's less than a month. Not necronisation.

Kilkrazy wrote:It's less than a month. Not necronisation.

A thread wasn't visited for a month before a post appears with very little content to bump it back up to the front page, sounds like a necro to me but you are the mod...

Necronization is only done to the living.

I get a lot of hate for saying this, but I honestly feel like Call of Duty is the plague of first person shooters. Mind you that it wasn't a stellar genre to begin with.

I say it's a plague because (yes, this is all opinion) I feel like it's a bland, repetitive game that's the same every time they release it, but people still buy it and rave about it.

Story? Nope! Variety? Nope! Who needs that crap? /sarcasm off.

They could bundle a literal piece of gak, slap the CoD tag on it, and it would be a smash-hit.

Melissia wrote:You still choose who you play as.

As far as her being the most popular, that was proven by a poll given by Valve.

No she wasn't?
Ellis was the top favourite character, when they polled it, using both the games during one time only, that is when they implemented the mutations and the weekly polls. I know this because I saw the results when I used to check the blog regularly

Don't make up statistics to support your very poor arguments

Melissia wrote:True, it's not really an easter eg. I suppose the lambda symbol shaved into the biker's head is more of one, but even then...

halonachos: You consider THAT hard to find? I see the standards for gamers have slipped in the twenty years I've been gaming now.

Easter eggs are anything hidden for the players to find in a game, it doesn't have to be shaven into a character's head to be an easter egg. Who knew that you were supposed to use the action button on the red phone in the Shi No Numa map in nazi zombies for an achievement. Who knew that there was a radio on a guard tower outside of the map in Kino der Toten. Its not so much that they're hard to find normally, but they're kind of hard to find when wave after wave of zombies is going after you. Well the guard tower one is hard to find, and the one in the chandelier is also hard to see. Same with throwing the monkey bomb into the incinerator in Der Reise.

I've also been gaming for twenty years and I think that the lack of stealth games is abhorrent.

Whoop modern warfare 3 is coming out, another similar fps to all the others that the un-hardcore gamers will buy in their nooblet droves, halo reach and cs:s ftw + bump

Asuron wrote:Ellis was the top favourite character

Zoey has been the most popular character in L4D amongst PC gamers throughout the series. And if you want to give me some bs about "made up statistics", you should stop being a hypocrite cite your own damn uncited claims.

From the L4D Blog:

The PC crowd continues to love Zoey. The polls were pretty much identical except for the top two. Xbox 360 users prefer Ellis then Zoey for their top picks. PC users prefer Zoey and then Ellis. Last week Bill (3rd place in this week's poll) was ranked ahead of Zoey in the 360 poll and behind Zoey in the PC poll. I think PC players are sweet on somebody...

Emphasis mine. So despite your ignorance and hypocrisy, Zoey continually scores at the top of the list of most popular characters, and for PC gamers, has consistently been at the top since the beginning, while 360 gamers are a bit more equitable in their love for characters (liking Bill and Ellis just as much). Still puts her as an amazingly popular character, regardless.

To the original question.
The CoD series hasn't made that many games but they should have either stopped at CoD4 or gone with new settings and not simply more modern and then vietnam...

Thumbs up to that

I want to say thread necro but the guy is the op and it is only a month.

Gah.

Insulted coz he stole your job, Big Nekromansa?

This can only be resolved with a RAP BATTLE!