Live action trailer Good or Bad?

#1 Posted by DamnILoveGames (139 posts) -
First off, I'm sorry if this comes off as a poncy trolling rant, but don't be too offended as it is just my view. Right then, I will say that it's pretty badass. Some well known stars were shown as were plenty of cool gadgets, there were explosions, zombies, a woman on a horse and Robert Downey Jr in a jet. Needless to say I was very entertained while watching it, and it kept my attention (I should hope so, it wasn't very long). It pretty much looked like an action junkie's wet dream on steroids. So you're probably thinking "But that's good isn't it?". Well, I would like to think so, yes. But one thing bugged me the whole way through (and remember ->opinion<-) and that was that it felt awkward watching it all the same. I couldn't help but feel it was like a parody of what Call of Duty has become. All the things I previously mentioned sounded like someone had watched a lot of action films and asked "Hmm, what if this all happened...AT ONCE!?". Yes, very cool indeed. But it didn't seem very "in place" for a military shooter. Now don't get me wrong, I know that Call of Duty has had the reputation of an arcade shooter for some years now, and that it has had many unrealistic features and could pretty much pass as a Blockbuster action movie with its huge scripted set sequences, and flashy explosions. But I pondered and thought, and remembered what Call of Duty once was. A serious shooter with a more "gritty" feel to it. It went from somewhat vulnerable heroes of war, to All-American super soldiers with Sci-Fi gizmos out to save the world from maniacal terrorists and Nazi Terrorist hybrid killer zombies. Now there are many things I could say about this, but need I do so? In case you want to know some to start you off I will give you some: Is this what now appeals far more to gamers? Should it be so insane considering this is part of what was once a normal war franchise? Now you could argue that the franchise is spicing things up a bit to stay separate from bland FPS games but is going balls out, throw every bizarre thing that comes to mind into it the right way to go? Now at the risk of many less intellectual readers thinking "Tw@T!" or "Chill out man you're being way too deep about this, it's just a game." and my favourite "tl;dr" (i.e. the worst trolling attempt ever devised). I'll cut it short and let you chat about it. Obviously my replies depend on who reads this and I hope it reaches the more mature and/or adolescent gamers but hey, feel free to post your opinion. Even if I don't agree with you, you're completely entitled to one. And once more, I'm not trying to troll so please don't fell that I am.
#2 Posted by erMonezza (355 posts) -

Parahraphs, check them out, m8.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph

 

This is very hard to read (not because of the topic).

#3 Posted by DamnILoveGames (139 posts) -
Alright, I suppose I could have implemented paragraphs, but it's not that hard to read. You'd have to be pretty challenged eyesight wise, to not be able to read that. I can do so fine. However, if you are I am sorry about that. I have tried editing paragraphs in but it won't add them.
#4 Posted by daintyhobo (173 posts) -

It was way overboard. It was as if the director and Treyarc just threw out every idea they had and put in one garbled mess. RDJ was cool, but too many "celebs" who aren't really famous. In short, que malo!! :x

#5 Posted by DamnILoveGames (139 posts) -
I completely agree. And, despite it being an 18, the demographic it looks like it's trying to appeal to isn't that age. Which could start a new topic entirely, one I might do actually. "Are age ratings still a warning, or just a number identifying what the game involves?". Because let's face it, at the end of the day most kids get their parents to buy the games anyway, and the stores and companies get money out of it so it's a win win situation.