Quantcast
Community Discussion: Blog by aileronroll | aileronroll's ProfileDestructoid
aileronroll's Profile - Destructoid




Game database:   #ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ         ALL     Xbox One     PS4     360     PS3     WiiU     Wii     PC     3DS     DS     PS Vita     PSP     iOS     Android




About
XBOX Live Ambassador, gamer, musician and the biggest nerd you will meet.
Player Profile
Xbox LIVE:aileronroll
Steam ID:aileronroll
Origin ID:aileronroll
Follow me:
Badges
Following (1)  


Back when Modern Warfare 3 came out, I had the chance to play and scrutinize it's multiplayer and single player games. During that time, a thought crossed my mind...didn't I just play this same game with Modern Warfare 2? Sure, the game types were a little different and the graphics were updated, but it was just the same game as 2 years prior. I paid $60 for a game that was essentially the same game? Yep.

Not only that, but it seems that the player's main goal in any Call Of Duty is to kill the other team, no matter what the actual objective is. I would be playing Domination and it would play and feel like Team Deathmatch. I would even think "Am I the only one actually going for the mission objectives?" and more often that not, the answer would be yes. Don't get me wrong: I like Team Deathmatch, but if the game just has that game type, there's no sense wasting $60 on players who run around like headless chicken. Not interested.

Instead, I like games that present new ideas to an ever expanding FPS and TPS genre. For example, Hybrid lets the players move from cover to cover...using jetpacks. You have to really know that that cover is where you want to go and you are committed to going there. If not, chances are you are going to be back to the spawn screen quicker than you can jetpack to the next cover. If that idea were to make it in a Call Of Duty game, players would be in an uproar. How about the game Brink? The idea that if you say to a teammate "I'm going to do this" and get rewarded is, well, rewarding. Instead to shooting each other as the primary objective, you can create flank positions and cut off enemy movement by building barricades...and get rewarded for teamwork. I don't see a Call Of Duty using this idea. Instead, if you want to survive, lone wolfing it is the way to go.

So what if they implemented these or any different ideas? Would you play it if a Call Of Duty added a very different idea to the table? If the idea makes a game better instead of the same game, I would. As a matter of fact, I would jump at the chance to play a Call Of Duty if they let me drive their vehicles and aircraft.








Answer this honestly: who has played Super Mario Brothers? Most everyone has. So what do you remember about the game? For me, it's my dad trying to figure out how to work the NES controller, which was very primitive back in the day. It was only a D-pad and two buttons, but for my dad, it was like handing him the Rosetta stone.

Ah, the memories. I used to play games until the wee hours of the morning in high school when games were primitive and made by only a handful of programmers. Yet, these were the games that I most enjoyed due to the fact that these games made me stop and wish for the good old days when games were not competitions.

That's the thing: games used to be played for fun. Before the advent of internet and MLG, gamers got together under one roof and played to see who can get farther in one level in Mario. I remember one night when my next door neighbor came over and did a speed run on Mario to the amazement and bewilderment of my family. Inspired, I spent the next month constantly trying to beat him. Nowadays, people get mad if they lose a one vs. one match on Call Of Duty to a far superior player. Heck, I've seen players act as though they are a professional gamers with their gamer picture as an MLG picture and playing COD constantly.

And when you look back at those games, they would be long forgotten in the sands of time.

Again, does anyone remember the first time you played Super Mario Brothers? Almost anyone who has played ANY game has played Mario so it's easy to remember your first time. How about Tetris? Zelda? Pong? Of course you do. Who hasn't? It was those games that were special. It wasn't about the graphics, the sound, any of that. It was that they were simply so much fun. Those first generation games had nostalgia factor.

So what changed? In my opinion, it was the changeover from a fad to a legit medium. Before, people played games to pass the time. They were not so glued to the TV so much as that there wasn't anything on TV, so why not fire up the Atari 2600 and play some Pong. When the first Playstation released, people saw that this was more than just a fad, it was here to stay. However, the jump to mass media came with the advent of internet with games. No longer were games confided to one console with multiple controllers playing one game. Now, you can play one game with someone from around the world. Heck, I played games with people from Germany, the UK, Japan and Australia. With that said, people won't remember these games due to the fact that these games now are a dime a dozen. How hard is it to find a Modern Warfare 3? Not very. How hard is it to find a first generation Metal Gear Solid? Harder than diamond.

It's all good, though. I love to fire up a Battlefield now and again to savor the sweet tank rides and satisfying kills. However, I love the games that I played as a kid and still do just for the fun factor.