Halo? Seems like they never recovered after the first one. I honestly don't see more improvement in Halo 4 from 1 than MW to BO2.
Originally Posted by MATRIX 2
BF3 while has improved, but it still has a lot of flaws and stands in its own right but is not a better multiplayer game than COD. The game has some major flaws that stop it from being a direct competitor. Of course it's still competing but I can play both and not care which one is better because they're both just so different.
I don't understand this...deathmatch is deathmatch, if you're going to get kills, you will win the match. Unless you keep dying...how is that different? And are we talking about the same game here? Halo does not require teamwork.
I am discussing the standard modes in each game which are played by the most amount of people. In halo you cannot dominate a deathmatch game by yourself. You may come out with the most kills but your team is guaranteed to lose if they do not work together. This is not the case in COD. I've played many games where I went rambo and essentially won the game for my team all by myself. (especially when you get the higher level killstreaks).
Ok but your argument shorts fall when you look at the games as a whole. Overall COD requires more skill than Halo.
If you take a person with an average ability in shooters (with no obvious skill bias towards halo/COD)) and have them play deathmatch games in COD/Halo with random people I'm willing to bet they will do better in COD rather than Halo.
Yea, COD is definitely more accessible or you can also say easy. Generally because there are no vehicles involved, maps are smaller, faster to kill others and overall the gameplay is much faster.
The nature of COD just makes it too easy for the player to do well. Hell if you can use 1 weapon for nearly every scenario and succeed then that should throw up a big flag.
Ok true you have a point there but for what COD does, it doesn't need a new engine. The graphics don't look dated to me honestly...they have improved quite a bit from MW.
Nonsense if games like ME3, Halo 4, BF3 and Gears 3 can look as good as they do on consoles then there is no excuse for COD. It's not just the hardware but the developers insistence on using the same base game engine for as long as possible.
How sad is it that in the supposed 1080p generation of console gaming we are just getting 720p games as the norm around the end of this generation. (I also find claims that the PS4 and next gen xbox will not be as big of a jump as the ps2 to ps3 or xbox to 360 to be foolish since we will finally have the power to have proper hd games)
I skipped MW3 so I can't comment, I personally didn't find it interesting from the videos so I'll go with your reasoning. However I do think that BO did make the series better and from the looks of it BO2 is continuing that trend...I'm going to be playing it very soon and build an opinion based on that.
I don't know about you but if you are pretty good at rainbow six and know the map you can easily do terrorist hunt by yourself with little or no assistance from teammates.
Like I said before I really haven't seen the game get better from MW to 2 to 3. I'd say it is closer to going the other way.
Who's fault is that? I'm not mad at Zipper for trying to copy COD with SOCOM 4, I'm mad that they didn't even remotely do a good job. If someone can make a better COD, go for it!
The setting of the COD games does have a tangible effect on the MP experience, it isn't just about singleplayer.
The battlefield games seem to have retained their core gameplay concepts but halo (4 mostly) seems to have adopted some COD ideas (and it isn't for the better). And medal of honor went from a decent series to utter crap. (trying to emulate COD in certain ways)
What developers? When was this? Are you talking about DLC such as BF3 puts out?
You know developers used to offer a thing called DLC in order to improve the MP of a game over a longer period of time. That is essentially pointless these days with yearly released. Why bother with DLC when the next game will come out several months down the road.
I'm not understanding this comparison. Those games are completely different.
The gaming community (especially if you have many online friends) funnels people into buying the most popular games because of the hype/coverage from gaming media and the fact that since most people are playing/talking about the most popular games the others get neglected.
Take Mass Effect 3 for example (I'm going to ignore people's problems with the ending just for a minute)
It is a great game, perhaps not as good as 2 or 1 regarding the SP but still worthy of a 90%+ review score average and various accolades.
What ME3 lacks in SP it made up for with the MP. And I really like their strategy of putting out free MP DLC while charging for the SP content.
Yet despite all of that ME3 dropped out of the top ten most played xbl games within ~1 month of release and dropped out of the top 20 entirely by August of last year (a bit over 5 months after coming out).
I just started playing it again, but it seems a lot of people are missing out on the improvements made by the DLC to the MP experience from what the game initially shipped with because they are too busy playing other games like BO2, BF3, H4, ect.
BF3 still gets played a lot and has had tons of DLC and more improvements through updates than any other shooter I've ever played. I don't buy the DLC though because I don't want to be stuck with something I may not always want to keep. From that respect, I like what Activision does. I skip all COD DLCs and just wait for the next one. Unless it's free DLC, I won't download it. I usually just wait for the GotY addition for the missing DLC.
How can you say that lol. That's exactly how COD is, the essential gameplay is there, and there's tons of improvement to enhance the game.
For improvements just look at what we got going from H3 to Reach to H4 for example Most of the gameplay is the same but we got a lot of improvements all around. That is just one example of what you see that is missing in the change from one cod game to the other.
As far as I can tell COD does the best job of milking when you look at all the shooting games out there.
Original GR was better, the one on Xbox was still pretty good. GRAW was the worst piece of crap I ever bought. GR was still not practical though, it was a better game as a co-op rather than a multiplayer against one another.
When I referred to rainbow six I was talking about Rainbow six 3 and Rainbow six 3: Black Arrow on the original xbox. Not the junk we got on the xbox and 360/ps3 since then. And I mentioned GRAW because I have much more experience with those GR games than the original GR games on the 1st xbox.
R6 3 was a good game but I think, due to the controls, it ultimately failed as a breach and clear game. The tactic just didn't work online, it worked in single player because that's all pretend stuff. Also the gun mechanics were realistic for its time but in retrospect, they aren't if you look at COD due to ADS. That doesn't mean that I'm calling COD more realistic than R6, I'm only speaking about the gun mechanics.
Ok, why don't you play regular SnD (not saying hardcore because I'm going easy on you) and post your video here.
Bull**** Halo games require much more skill than COD period. Hell I can't think of a contemporary shooter that requires less skill than COD. I bet I could hop back on MW3 which I haven't played in ~9 months and dominate like I did when I regularly played it.
Honestly the biggest impediment in COD is ensuring you don't have latency screwing up your game. That's it.
They introduce new perks, new mechanics (i can't be bothered to go back and research this for you but i have seen quite a lot of improvements in mechanics), new maps, new equipment, gadgets etc. What else do you want? MW to MW2 was a big change...note I didn't say improvement because while it improved in so many ways, it also screwed up in others. Though if you play Black Ops, you will see that get better. MW3 seems like it was a piece of junk so while your argument is valid in its context, it doesn't include the bigger picture.
Changes in gameplay are minimal throughout the 3 games. Each successive game basically refines the major errors found in the previous game. And they don't really bother doing much else either outside of creating the new content mandatory for a new game.
I think COD games suffer in scoring due to an average campaign. That's not to say Halo hasn't had its own dull campaign but COD generally doesn't focus on that.
You will notice that Halo, 2, 3 and Reach all scored in the 90%+ range. Halo 4 was the first not to (rightfully so) (of the major halo games, ODST was basically just a new SP storyline with a small MP addition (firefight)).
The same thing happened to COD. I think MW2 was the pinnacle because it rectified the major issues with the original MW, but after that it really just became stagnant.
You know it must be bad when they had to come up with the ridiculous setting they did in BO2.
And why is that COD's fault? Halo didn't have competition either when it came out on Xbox.
The only reason COD is doing so well is because of a lack of competition.
Outside of Battlefield and Halo what other shooters are there that compete against COD? Where is Ghost Recon? Rainbow Six? A proper medal of honor game? And the various other shooters (new ip/non existing franchise) that seem to pop up every once in a while?
I see your point. I do wish they would do the same and I've openly criticized that from the start of this thread but that doesn't stop the series from being good. Given that you're not buying every single game lol. Do Pokemon fans buy all Pokemon games? They usually have like 3 come out at once lol.
Originally Posted by Blacksite
I promise you that the updates are not miniscule. To compare it, I'd say the changes are more like an expansion if not a sequel. So your point is valid but I just don't think they can do that with updates...not to mention, it would piss off the players that liked a certain game over the other.
Originally Posted by Naxi
I think just about the only game I can think of that has done this sort of stuff through DLC is World of Warcraft...you won't see much of it in shooters in such a short time.
That's true but at no point do I feel that it's easier for them to pull this off than the rest of the development community. They cater to millions of people and one wrong change can mean a big deal...I'm pretty sure the pressure is bigger on them than your average dev. It's also not easy to pull off changes from one installment to another. Look at KZ. Look at SOCOM, look at Halo trying to change but now trying to go back to the origin. It's just not that easy.
The AC games are mainly SP games as well and they've been annual.
My main point is still that creatively these developers are held hostage. Financially it's great for them, but artistically it is not.
IMO both of these devs do a great job by supplying new maps, changes in perks/guns and additions alike. Slight improvements in graphics and effects and now sound too with BO2.
Hmm...Vice City just felt smaller to me.
Originally Posted by keefy