Join Date: Jul 2008
Originally Posted by luckbox
You keep throwing out the word elitist to put us down but you are the one with a stick up your ass. Noone is arguing that millions of people enjoy playing Call of Duty. The only thing I argue is that FPS games made for competitive gaming are generally better, more diverse, more complex, more exciting and much more rewarding to put down time playing and getting better. This is because of a lot of things, including freedom of movement, importance of tactics and communication, no random game factors, the ability to understand and manipulate sound, and a perfect hitbox among many other things. The games are also more unforgiving than the casual games so as a result it makes you concentrate more, making the game more intense.
If you look at all these factors it's pretty clear to me that a game like Quake or Counter-Strike 1.6 is far superior to the Call of Duty games. That is all I'm saying. If people wanna play MW3, more power to them. But I think if Valve could get the same kind of marketing behind CS:GO (which won't be held back because of the graphics like 1.6 would be for a lot of people), then they would give CoD a serious run for their money. It's human nature to thrive, to practice in order to get better, to beat your friends and feel the thrill and the excitement to clutch a close round for your team.
Who said anything about putting you down? Do you know what elitist is? You do realize in the world of gaming, elitist means people who think they their game, their community, their preferences are superior to others, specifically when based around the other community/game being "less skilled"?
You say that CS is a better game, that's fine, everyone has games they feel are better than others, but when someone goes on to say that other games suck specifically because it doesn't cater to your preferences and that the community of people who play them must be 15 year old kids who have no idea what a good game is, then you are elitist, like it or not, that's the definition of it in the gaming culture, not good, not bad, it's just the term used for that type of gamer/group of people.
Also, I never said you were, I wasn't quoting you. Obviously my problem, which isn't even a "problem", it's just a question/observation, is with the other guy, who seems to think that anyone not playing Quake is a 15 year old casual gamer who "wouldn't last at all playing Quake", which is, again, elitist. learn to check who I am quoting there.
Anyways, I asked my question/gave my opinion on the matter, I think it's nonsensical and silly to be anti-COD like Grapple is simply because it's more popular/has more players (which is Valve and other companies fault for not advertising/marketing their games as much), and because it is designed for a different kind of player base. I had no idea asking a question about why Grapple hates COD so much would get into this whole thing, let's all move on, or at least I am, it's off topic anyways.