Aphasia wrote:I would say it's a quality product instead of a quality game.
That's definitely a better way of stating it from our perspective, but for a lot of the market it appears that a quality product
is a quality game.
I'm not trying to make the egalitarian argument that all tastes are the same, as I think that's hypocritical nonsense that no one honestly believes. But I am trying to make the argument that are likely a lot more of the kind of people who see "quality product = quality game" than there are folks like us who make a distinction.
And their money is worth the same as ours. Steam sells MW2 for $25 because it sells adequately at $25.
I guess I'm really trying to say that CoD really shouldn't be the figurehead of either of the "game lack product quality" or "games lack gameplay" arguments. It's an easy target, but it's an easy target because it
doesn't really fit those two arguments: Out of the numerous alternatives CoD is on top of the market
because it is better. You want to see games without quality? Games with really crappy gameplay? They exist in spades, they're just not easy targets because they suck so bad they lack the prominence of CoD.
Is BF3 a better game? For multiplayer, probably. I certainly prefer it over Blops 2 multiplayer. But, then again, it seems to me that the BF franchise is PC-focused whereas the CoD franchise is console-focused. That's certainly where I play them anyway.
At any rate, they really offer two different gameplay experiences: CoD is like a knifefight in a elevator, whereas BF is more like a team-based combat sim (unless you are playing metro or the CQ maps, in which event it's like a knifefight in a phonebooth).