Spike 2011 Video Game Awards Results

[Guts]

It made me sad that Call of Duty even won anything. Seriously what sets different shooters apart? Really? I want to know. You couldn't throw the disc's into a hat and pull out a random one and just play it and tell which is which? The only thing different is weapons and who cares...your goal is the same in every single one. You get a gun, you have enemies coming at you, you spray and pray or just get headshots and then end up at another group of bad guys and rinse and repeat...ya...same dang thing for every game every time. Don't give me "oh but one is more tactical and the other is more team oriented."

Oh look, someone who's ripping on mainstream shooters. How original.
Call of Duty is one of my favorite game franchises, ever since the original CoD. I hate to have to defend the series OVER and OVER and OVER on almost every forum I go to. Of course, this is to be expected from forums where a lot of people who are more into Pokemon/Mario/Nintendo oriented games. It is true that MW3 and BF3 are similar in many respects. But that doesn't deny the fact that they are both extremely fun and pretty much amazing games to play. The shooter franchise has lost a lot of credibility due to the fact that bratty 9-year-olds grab a game and a mic and pretty much just ruin the fun for everyone. This is how most people see CoD players: dumb kids/adolescents who play the game because it's "mainstream" and has a lot of appeal to that spectrum of the gaming audience, and because they're too "stupid" to play any other games. I myself am 17, and I highly enjoy the genre. But you must understand that shooters are extremely different from one another; it only takes an iota of brain power to see that. It'd be like comparing Skyrim (which is an incredibly well made game that you are ripping on) to Fallout, both made by Bethesda. They're both the same "genre", but they are completely different in what they want you to experience and accomplish in the games. Don't talk down on a genre just because you don't like it; as if other games are "too good" for CoD/Halo players. Shooters are a type of game where you can sit down, grab some friends, and just kill each other for an hour or two. The gaming industry seems to want to revolve around this idea, making games a type of escapism rather than delivering a true piece of art. It's just sad to see the work of game developers like Infinity Ward to be immediately labeled as childish or stupid, just because some people who play the game give it a bad reputation.

 

[PokeMedic]

Oh look, mainstream shooters. How original.

I fixed that for you.

While I'm yet to play Doom: Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, I do remember playing Doom: Call of Duty Black Ops. But my favorite shooter of all time has got to be Half-Life: Half-Life 2.

They're all the same to me. Run around and shoot people with guns. They just try to do it differently. Halo got so popular because it was the first time so many people were introduced to FPS games -they didn't have the computers to play them on. Unless it was Counter-Strike. The system requirement for HL and henceforth it's mods was stupid low.

The only way these games try to be different is in the presentation. Halo is all Sci-Fi while Call of Duty tries to be down to Earth about how it looks and what it reflects. What gets me is how popular military themed shooters are now. Hardly any person in our country made willing sacrifices during the last 10 years. Those that did, who actually served in the military, busted their asses for whatever it was they believed in. Some folks in America just pretend to be important, I guess, and games like this give them the outlet. We've been at war for so long that it's become a very entertaining avenue for people. I've wondered what the appeal of FPS games is to people. Is it the perspective? The violence? The Fantasy? I think it's just what the current technology has to offer the palette of those who seek fun. Long ago the largest genre of PC games were adventure games. Animation, movement, text, story. That's the best the hardware could give you at the time. Then the CD-ROM came out and you had more storage, room for arranged soundtracks, voice overs, and maybe even movies. Then 3D became more and more popular. 3D had some promise -to actually be able to explore an artifical enviormnt that could be true to life. When I was young we thought Virtual Reality would be the thing we grew old with. Oops.

Today, the big games are in 3D. 3D is supposed to give you a better experience, but it's just flashy now and nothing more. Now with 3D you can render environments where things can move in all sorts of directions. You can have things move in that environment. Now you can have pyshics in that enviorment. It can be pretty neat. 3D games are a tease though most of the time. There is an environment, but more often then not it is just a static environment. I remember Half-Life 2 raising the bar on that; a game built in an engine that was supported by actual physics. Technology has more and more promise, but it seems to be wasted on stupid things. I don't care anymore that bodies ragdoll. Big woop. Does one body land atop another one in a funny, sort of sexual way? Haha a few times, but whatever man. But that's what the technology today has offer people. Immerse, 3D worlds where you shoot fake bullets at another 12 year old up passed his bedtime in an environment full of wooden crates that absorb bullets somehow. If that's not enough to justify needing two 1GB video cards (60 inch plasma to you console players) then just wait until that punk kid frags you with his knife then laughs at you over voice through your high-tech sound system and teabags you at 60+ frames per second.

 

[Delta]

^ That

Also -

That isn't the point...no it doesn't matter what you jump into. Who cares if you go into space or you go into paintings, you are still playing a very similar game. As I said they just polished up Mario 64 and added a couple new things and then threw it out there...and it took off. It's a very similar game you have to admit.

And you miss my point. I didn't mean jumping into the painting as the only change. You're confusing genre with the game.
Just because the game looks better and has the same gameplay, doesn't mean it's the same game, it's the same genre. Of course Galaxy 1&2 are going to be similar to 64, but Galaxy added huge new levels and scenery including masses of new obstacles and power-ups, that's not repeating itself, it's called a sequel. Just because a game plays the same as another, doesn't mean it's the same game; so it has some running themes and is a platformer, does that mean it's been re-made? No, it's adding more things to make the gaming experience more enjoyable. Just about every Mario game has added new enemies, power-ups and certainly brand new courses and it's done a fantastic job doing it.

This goes for everything else, Zelda, CoD, RPG's and all. It's steadily adding new things to make the experience the best it can be for gamers.

 

[Guts]

Military-themed shooters just bank off the experience of being a spec-ops bad@ss, it doesn't reflect on the U.S. military what_so_ever. The whole "games being disrespectful towards real soldiers" idea was thrown out of the window a long time ago. Although you're probably not driving at that, it's sad to hear it as an excuse for why someone dislikes that game/genre. Anyways, I believe that big games are built from successful formulas; you create a concept and release a game based around it, and then you build from that success. The result, sadly, is the same game being delivered in different packaging. If you were in the position of Infinity Ward, let's say, and you removed the points people have been complaining about on MW2. You're saying that you wouldn't improve upon them, create a new multiplayer system, continue the campaign mode from MW2, and release MW3 for lord-who-knows how much money? Millions? Billions? Like Uninstall said, Video Games are an industry, and the goal of an industry is to make money. Making small changes to successful formulas for a small cost and a huge profit is just common sense, and sadly, good video games aren't always the result. But just don't assume that the shooter genre is just the same money-grubbing experience; having some laughs with friends on multiplayer is what I and people who play CoD should care about, it's a game based off sociability, or playing with other people. Bashing the repetitiveness of the games is just running against the wind; it's pointless, and while people enjoy shooting at each other for laughs (or not so much laughing) online, I'm not one to argue, punk 12-year old "fragging me with his knife" or not.

Today, the big games are in 3D.

bahahahahaha

 

[Blazzy]

Now for shooters you have a point along with Mario Kart, which I'll dub as simply racing games. Racing games shouldn't even be made, they are all terrible, each and every single one of them.

You have obviously never played the Forza Motorsport games, or the DiRT series if you say they're all terrible. Even almost all the Need for Speed games would be some of the best racing games if they were given a little more support. If you have only a Wii then that's the reason why you say that, since all the good racing games are for PC/360/PS3. (No I will not count Mario Kart since it gets repetitive and going through every corner without braking is something I hate in racing games.)

 

[Delta]

You have obviously never played the Forza Motorsport games, or the DiRT series if you say they're all terrible. Even almost all the Need for Speed games would be some of the best racing games if they were given a little more support. If you have only a Wii then that's the reason why you say that, since all the good racing games are for PC/360/PS3. (No I will not count Mario Kart since it gets repetitive and going through every corner without braking is something I hate in racing games.)

Well, hehe, I don't wanna be the hater here but I have played Forza 2,3 and 4 and they all never appealed to me in the slightest. If anything, the main racing games get the most repetitive, slowly upgarding your car and racing in the same courses is boring. At least Mario Kart offers power sliding and items, it's fun to play with other people. I'm not sure about multiplayer on forza but I can guess it's fairly monotone.
Never played any of the DiRT games.

For some reason I loved Pure, it's weird.

 

[Guts]

Dude, Pure is the best. I don't know why either, but it's just such a stylistic game that brings something different to racers. And on the topic of racers, I'm a PS3 fanboy, so yeah, I like Forza. Just looks good and fun to play, I'm not very "into it" as a lot of players claim to be.

 

[Starboard Driger]

Well, hehe, I don't wanna be the hater here but I have played Forza 2,3 and 4 and they all never appealed to me in the slightest. If anything, the main racing games get the most repetitive, slowly upgarding your car and racing in the same courses is boring. At least Mario Kart offers power sliding and items, it's fun to play with other people. I'm not sure about multiplayer on forza but I can guess it's fairly monotone.
Never played any of the DiRT games.

For some reason I loved Pure, it's weird.

I won't bash you for your opinion, but I can say I don't agree with it. Forza is a hard game to sell; you have to be seriously interested in cars to get the most out of it. Pulling off an incredible drift in Forza 3/4, in the car you spent forever tuning to perfection (yes I play it to drift, there's more to the game than horsepower), an inch away from the guardrail, is (dare I say it) the most exciting moment I have ever experienced in a video game.

"The same courses" and some other things you said also applies to Mario Kart, you know