Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst ... 3 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 104
  1. #51
    Forum Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    9,868
    Rep Power
    88
    Points
    41,154 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    Yearly releases are a bad thing because developers are not able to take the time to ensure the game is the best it can be. Yes there are 2 development studios for the COD games but treyarch basically reused the game engine and other assets from the main developer (used to be IW, but things have shifted around) and really only change the content a bit.

    When you compare it games that have taken a good 2-3+ years to develop the difference is clear.
    I disagree - No COD is made in 1 year, they are both 2 year cycle games. There have been many games that have taken 2 or more years to develop and still don't match the quality of COD. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule.

    Compared to Halo, COD requires much less skill to succeed at (regarding deathmatch). And if you look to older games like GRAW or the old Rainbow Six games the skill gap is even more apparent.

    If a game requires essentially no skill to succeed at then what is the point of investing the time in playing it.
    Compared to Halo is arguable. If you play standard modes on Halo then yes, it requires more skill - maybe patience -as you need to take down the other players shield before you can kill them. I normally played Halo 3 on SWAT (My skill was 42 in lone wolves and 38 in SWAT) what is shields down - it feels the same as COD as all you need is a good aim and you can take many players down with one shot to the head - as games should be.

    What I would like COD to do is to take a leaf out of Halo's match making. No game has ever had a better match making system than Halo. If it did that then maybe people would find it more of a challenge actually getting pitted against people with a similar skill level as themselves.


    I have only played the MW COD games but going from MW -> MW2 -> MW3 there really hasn't been much of a change in gameplay. having the same base gampley for the past 5 years gets pretty stale, especially when it doesn't require skill.
    I do agree that much hasn't changed but it comes back to how much can they change without changing what COD is, if that makes sense? Again, the skill thing is up for debate, it may not take 'skill' to play the game but it takes 'skill' to be good at the game. Someone who lacks 'skill' isn't going to be very likely to have a high KDR.

    It takes no skill to learn how to play football - doesn't mean we can all be professional does it.


    Compared to pretty much any other headline shooter the graphics. physics, ai are dated. People are only satisfied because it is one of the few shooters to run at 60fps (even if it runs at sub 720p resolutions in order to maintain 60fps).
    That is a problem with the console, it looks fine on PC. The consoles old tech are the reason why CoD looks the way it does. And you are right, people are satisfied with the lower resolution because it has a fluid feel to the game. I know i prefer higher frame rates to higher resolutions, thankfully i don't have to make that compromise. But just because the consoles can't handle to do much more you can't really blame that on the game.

    Due to the nature of COD teamwork in deathmatch type games is not necessary to achieve victory.

    This is not the case in Halo, and definitely not the case in Ghost Recon/Rainbow Six type games.
    Again, if you want team work play in a match type that encourages team work. If you are playing TDM expecting team work then you are playing the wrong game. And another point, if you want team work - play with a group of friends. While i agree that team work is much more required in the RB6 games and somewhat to Halo I have played many matches of Terrorist Hunt - a mode that requires nothing but team work where i have team members not playing their part. Again - this is down to the gamers not wanting to do team work and go John Rambo.



    Modern Warfare has an 94.16 average ranking at gamerankings.

    MW2 has an 93.49 average ranking.

    MW3 has an 88.36 average ranking.

    If we look at the Modern Black Ops games.

    BO 87.39

    BO2 86.08
    Sure, the ratings have dropped by 7 points but i still don't think the quality of the games have dropped. Repetitive, yes. But I can honestly say with the exception of the first BO i haven't felt cheated whenever i've bought a COD game.

    It was actually better when the black ops games focused on historical conflicts and not pseudo modern/future conflicts like the MW games did.That was a significant differentiation regarding content between the 2 sets of COD games.
    I have never bought a COD game for the single player so i couldn't care less about that portion of the game as i've never played them. I've only completed the CoD4.

    You can try to defend COD all you want but it has several obvious flaws that give people legitimate reasons to not like the game.
    Don't for a second think I am under the impression COD can do no wrong, I know it isn't perfect but i also don't think it deserves all of the flack it gets.

    I'll even say the COD has stifled innovation in shooters due to its ever increasing success with less effort being put in. So everybody else is too busy trying to copy certain aspects of COD gameplay rather then innovating in their own way.
    How has COD stifled the innovation in shooters? That is just wrong. What has stifled the innovation in shooters are the other games trying to emulate what COD does. COD has always been it's own game, it's the other developers that aren't trying to innovate their own game that will kill the genre. Your blaming a game for other games copying it when the fault lies with the other games developers. It's not like COD is saying "COPY ME COPY ME"

    Quote Originally Posted by Naxi View Post
    [/I][/COLOR]Yearly releases do not build anticipation and frankly it's not enough time to "forget" the gameplay and miss it. Getting away with is not really a point in CoD's favour. There's games like GTA that could do it, but do not. Each game is much more distinct and hasn't worn the franchise out.
    Games don't need to build anticipation - not for me anyway. If a game is good, it's good and i'll get it. I couldn't care less if they brought out a new game every quarter, if the game is worth my money i'll buy it. If it isn't i won't buy it.

    Then what makes you think you have to buy each one? You made a good point, if it comes out too soon i may not want to play it. I completed Assassins Creed Revelations last year so i didn't want to buy AC:3 when it released a few months ago. I'll buy it when I am ready to buy it. Then again i'm not the type of gamer that needs to play every game on release so it may be different for me.

    Nothing compared to CoD's 9 releases this gen. Assassin's Creed has the advantage of actually feeling a lot different with each numbered release. CoD's evolution is much smaller, even with a greater number of games.
    I can agree with you but it's like everyone is forgetting that people are still going out and buying the latest game. People still enjoy COD regardless if the upgrade is minimal - isn't that the important thing, whether or not you enjoy it?

  2. #52
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,783
    Rep Power
    192
    Points
    111,722 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    People play it to have people to play with, they see their friends playing it all the time so buy the game so they have someone to play with.
    I do think that's one of the biggest reasons why people pay up every year to get it. It's popular, everyone is playing it and that makes it more fun.

    the whole killsteaks system is just wrong Rewarding the player thats doing the best by giving them easier ways to get more kills isn't exactly fair especially when that thing is floating above raining down bullets and whats more is the player is not inside it so when it gets shot down they do not even get penalised a death. There is absolutely no downside to these killstreaks.

    Killzone 2 has the worst controls in a recent FPS console game and that ruins it far more than any amount of decent gameplay and atmosphere it has.
    Killstreaks are definitely unfair in some cases but there are ways to get around them...however, the general player will not care and yes it can be frustrating to see the game change by someone's killstreak. What I will say though is that if you play S&D, this won't be much of an issue, most people barely get the UAV in that mode much less anything more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lethal_NFS View Post
    Bringing up Killzone in this thread is pointless. It is nowhere near as popular as the COD franchise and never will be. The ONLY other franchise comparable is Battlefield.

    Why is there so much hate towards Call of Duty? Because Activision feels it is necessary to push out a new damn game every single year. This is why people complain. This new one took features away from the last one......This new one has less maps than the last one. It will never end and people will always complain.

    For me, Call of Duty left it's roots and started making the game extremely tedious. Call of Duty 2 was the last one I really got in to. No advantages for any team. Go out there and the better players won at the end of the day. Now if you are a new player, you will suck because you don't have all these perks that these other guys have.

    I miss the glory days of Call of Duty..
    I can understand your point, I do enjoy games where there are no killstreaks or perks or any sort of advantages but I also like this because I think of it as a FPS with some RPG elements.

    Quote Originally Posted by $Greatness$ View Post
    I hate what it has become post Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. The game is too stupefied now with over the top nonsense and handicapping. That's why I personally hate COD now. However, it is still fun to make people cry and play with friends.
    While I agree with your point, the problem is that if you don't add more features and make the game more crazy than the last one, people won't buy it. One of the biggest things people look at are perks, guns, and maps imo.
    Quote Originally Posted by robvandam111 View Post
    Thanks to the trajectory the franchise has taken it has tainted mostly every other brand besides Killzone. Due to the success of COD, other companies with their FPSs are taking it more to a business approach than making a game that's you'd know it'll be worth the $60. The franchise are also releasing a sequel every year. Why? Because the public are very easy to manipulated to catch the bait. It's unfortunate to see a genre that has been popular only to become a fishing pool of money.
    I personally don't think every COD release is worth $60...I generally wait a little while before getting it. I agree here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Naxi View Post
    -Yearly releases - CoD is not that special anymore, it's oversaturated.
    -The developers are creatively trapped. IW at least consisted of a great team. They could work on something new.
    -Killstreaks - one of the worst additions to shooters.
    -Overstimulation of the player. They had one shocking moment in CoD4 which people liked, so they thought they should have a hundred of them in their sequels. Dulls the senses and ruins the game.
    -Such business practices are awarded.

    E: I don't hate it, I hate what it represents now. I loved CoD4, but that is ruined now.
    Alright, point taken but how else could they have released like...8 games after it (exaggerating) and would've made all that money. I will say that I have enjoyed all of the CODs I've played and I agree that the series has faults but it does have somethings that no other shooter offers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybertox View Post
    Because its not innovative.
    It may not be innovating much from one release to another but what it brought this generation, is imo enough to call it the king of multiplayer shooters.

    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    Yearly releases are a bad thing because developers are not able to take the time to ensure the game is the best it can be. Yes there are 2 development studios for the COD games but treyarch basically reused the game engine and other assets from the main developer (used to be IW, but things have shifted around) and really only change the content a bit.

    Well, they make tweaks to the perk system, add and remove as they like. There are always new maps, always improvement in guns. They're always improving on making the gameplay more accessible and efficient. While I do agree that these are not huge changes, and I do think that it's not worth buying every sequel, unless you have friends, but no one is forcing anyone to buy all of them. I skip/sell the games when I'm burnt out from the series and come back when I need a fix. Overall I think the game does compete with the best out there. After playing BF3 for a year and a half...I feel like I need my COD fix.

    When you compare it games that have taken a good 2-3+ years to develop the difference is clear.

    That's normal. Of course, if you have more time to develop, you show more improvement. Though if something is working, why completely change it? What could they add without alienating their user base? I just don't see much until we get to the next generation.

    Compared to Halo, COD requires much less skill to succeed at (regarding deathmatch). And if you look to older games like GRAW or the old Rainbow Six games the skill gap is even more apparent.

    But why take one part of the game and compare it fully to another game. Did you know that R6: Last Vegas with deathmatch is just as much mindless, just much slower and less controllable? Why is GRAW in there?

    As far as gun mechanics, Halo requires far less skill and is more like UT. While COD is easy, it's still a tactical shooter in some ways and thus requires much more strategy and the ability to know your gun well.


    If a game requires essentially no skill to succeed at then what is the point of investing the time in playing it.

    If you're playing deathmatch only, then yes you're right. You can't play it much unless you were unlocking something. Though even hardcore deathmatch requires a lot of teamwork and skill...so you have to really get into the game to see its rewards.


    I have only played the MW COD games but going from MW -> MW2 -> MW3 there really hasn't been much of a change in gameplay. having the same base gampley for the past 5 years gets pretty stale, especially when it doesn't require skill.


    I can see your point, I skipped MW3 and BO was just ok...but if you compare the first one to the one now, I think there are a good amount of change in gameplay.

    Compared to pretty much any other headline shooter the graphics. physics, ai are dated. People are only satisfied because it is one of the few shooters to run at 60fps (even if it runs at sub 720p resolutions in order to maintain 60fps).

    The graphics aren't an eyesore, in fact, I really like the graphics and imo they are competitive if you compare it fairly. Sure KZ, HALO, Crysis and BF have much better graphics but COD just has that UT feel to it, they do a nice job with the shaders and It does boast a fps close to 60fps for the most part which is hard to pull off and is important in online shooters imo.

    Due to the nature of COD teamwork in deathmatch type games is not necessary to achieve victory.

    This is not the case in Halo, and definitely not the case in Ghost Recon/Rainbow Six type games.

    Well this goes back to my earlier point, you're just looking at one mode out of a dozen that it boasts. Also GR has never been good at multiplayer and R6 is pretty mindless too in deathmatch unless you were playing non-respawn.

    Modern Warfare has an 94.16 average ranking at gamerankings.

    MW2 has an 93.49 average ranking.

    MW3 has an 88.36 average ranking.

    If we look at the Modern Black Ops games.

    BO 87.39

    BO2 86.08

    Are you trying to say that this proves that the game is worse with time? Ok. So you're saying that every sequel sucks? Because almost no game achieves a better score than the previous release...even if it's better most of the times.

    i.e.

    Halo 97%
    Halo 2 95%
    Halo 3 94%
    Halo:ODST 83%
    Halo:Reach 91%
    Halo 4 87%

    It was actually better when the black ops games focused on historical conflicts and not pseudo modern/future con
    flicts like the MW games did.

    That was a significant differentiation regarding content between the 2 sets of COD games.

    You can try to defend COD all you want but it has several obvious flaws that give people legitimate reasons to not like the game.

    I agree but you have to compare it to other games fairly. You're taking one tiny part of the game and skipping a big chunk of the game.

    As for storyline, never been interested...BO was alright, MW actually had a decent one at points...I generally buy it for multiplayer.


    I'll even say the COD has stifled innovation in shooters due to its ever increasing success with less effort being put in. So everybody else is too busy trying to copy certain aspects of COD gameplay rather then innovating in their own way.

    And they have so far failed at it...and that's because COD has a lot of things going for it that people overlook.
    Quote Originally Posted by Naxi View Post
    [/I][/COLOR]Yearly releases do not build anticipation and frankly it's not enough time to "forget" the gameplay and miss it. Getting away with is not really a point in CoD's favour. There's games like GTA that could do it, but do not. Each game is much more distinct and hasn't worn the franchise out.

    Nothing compared to CoD's 9 releases this gen. Assassin's Creed has the advantage of actually feeling a lot different with each numbered release. CoD's evolution is much smaller, even with a greater number of games.
    It's not like GTA can do it even if they wanted to...the game is mainly single player, which means it needs a lot of content that can take a long time. COD can get away with it because online shooters generally just need new maps, new guns and some improvements. I think of the COD as expansions, which is why I have skipped a few in there. But overall, even if you look at all the issues such as multiple releases and not much difference between them...the game still offers something no other game this generation has been able to copy or introduce with improvements or even being remotely on par.

    I can't find my S&D fix anywhere else. Even games like CS don't have it (what COD is based off on) because the controls aren't there, the frame rate isn't there and the community isn't there.

  3. #53
    Elite Member
    billm0066's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,522
    Rep Power
    62
    Points
    8,827 (0 Banked)
    I don't buy COD, because it is $#@!ing boring. It's the same game for the last 5 years, and the engine looks and feels the exact same. My nephew bought the new one, and I couldn't play single player for more than 20 minutes. The graphics were awful, and it felt like I was playing a ps2. The controls are absolutely terrible. You can handle a 10lb gun like it's the weight of a feather. I would rather play the worst game on the wii than any cod game. People are sheep, so when you hear of people playing cod it makes you want to play it too. I'm no sheep so you wont catch me playing it

  4. Likes JVH likes this post
  5. #54
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,783
    Rep Power
    192
    Points
    111,722 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by billm0066 View Post
    I don't buy COD, because it is $#@!ing boring. It's the same game for the last 5 years, and the engine looks and feels the exact same. My nephew bought the new one, and I couldn't play single player for more than 20 minutes. The graphics were awful, and it felt like I was playing a ps2. The controls are absolutely terrible. You can handle a 10lb gun like it's the weight of a feather. I would rather play the worst game on the wii than any cod game. People are sheep, so when you hear of people playing cod it makes you want to play it too. I'm no sheep so you wont catch me playing it
    I think the problem is that your basis is on single player, we're talking about multiplayer.

    The game doesn't have a weighty feel to it but the controls are the best in the industry. When we say controls, we're actually talking about look speed, dead zone, etc. We're not talking about the feel of the game.

  6. #55
    Miqo'te Bard
    Yuuichi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    8,082
    Rep Power
    76
    Points
    16,216 (0 Banked)
    Items New User TitleProtect yourselfFull Metal AlchemistFangDark Souls CoverDemons Souls CoverBattlefield 3Title StyleUser name style
    Auto aim, regen health, lag those are my big complaints. I prefer hardcore recently and have found it to be more fun. Its mostly hated because of the stigma with it wich is mostly true ie jackass and kids online.
    I have twitter to https://twitter.com/GamerYuichi , Also started youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMu7yRGCz8QrTyxaNVR3Tqw I don't always twitch, but when I can you can find my noobness http://www.twitch.tv/yuichimccry,




  7. #56
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,783
    Rep Power
    192
    Points
    111,722 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I hated auto-aim at first because I was so used to SOCOM but I don't mind it now. Almost every game has it too anyway. Regen health, yea I hate that but that may be why you like hardcore because there's no health regen in there. Lag...I never get that but in BO, I had to set my region to US in order to get good games...BO was the only COD that had lag for me.

  8. #57
    Ultimate Veteran
    Metal King Slime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    23
    Posts
    22,382
    Rep Power
    192
    Points
    7,727 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I just don't support the idea of annual releases. Even Assassin's Creed III was in development for two and half years. Doesn't anyone find anything wrong with playing a game for a year and then abandoning it, only to go back to it and praise it for being the better game when it really fell short to begin with?

    Why do developers that bring in so much money for publishers continue to operate as though they're going out of business while development studios like Rockstar North take their time in developing and marketing their games?
    Thanks to Kwes for the avatar and Sylar for the signature!


  9. #58
    Dedicated Member
    Sleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,442
    Rep Power
    42
    Points
    14,999 (0 Banked)
    World at War is still my favorite FPS shooter to this day.

  10. #59
    The Dawkness!
    Naxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    PSN ID
    ElNaxi
    Age
    23
    Posts
    9,654
    Rep Power
    104
    Points
    7,718 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBettaKnow View Post
    Games don't need to build anticipation - not for me anyway. If a game is good, it's good and i'll get it. I couldn't care less if they brought out a new game every quarter, if the game is worth my money i'll buy it. If it isn't i won't buy it.

    Then what makes you think you have to buy each one? You made a good point, if it comes out too soon i may not want to play it. I completed Assassins Creed Revelations last year so i didn't want to buy AC:3 when it released a few months ago. I'll buy it when I am ready to buy it. Then again i'm not the type of gamer that needs to play every game on release so it may be different for me.

    I can agree with you but it's like everyone is forgetting that people are still going out and buying the latest game. People still enjoy COD regardless if the upgrade is minimal - isn't that the important thing, whether or not you enjoy it?
    I haven't bought a CoD game since 4. I'm still bombarded with ads and discussions about the latest title. It's just present all the time, there's no appreciation for it anymore. I still borrow them to go through the campaign, as I do not like multiplayer.

    Mechanically the game has always been sound, but it has still been the same game and over time it has gotten boring.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Alright, point taken but how else could they have released like...8 games after it (exaggerating) and would've made all that money. I will say that I have enjoyed all of the CODs I've played and I agree that the series has faults but it does have somethings that no other shooter offers.

    It's not like GTA can do it even if they wanted to...the game is mainly single player, which means it needs a lot of content that can take a long time. COD can get away with it because online shooters generally just need new maps, new guns and some improvements. I think of the COD as expansions, which is why I have skipped a few in there. But overall, even if you look at all the issues such as multiple releases and not much difference between them...the game still offers something no other game this generation has been able to copy or introduce with improvements or even being remotely on par.

    I can't find my S&D fix anywhere else. Even games like CS don't have it (what COD is based off on) because the controls aren't there, the frame rate isn't there and the community isn't there.
    Vice City was released the year after.

    Every CoD game should have long legs, so the actual need for yearly release is negated. It just needs map packs or make it a subscription-based service entirely.

    As the multiplayer is similar to CS, I've stuck with that. I've been able to enjoy it for hundreds of dollars less, since the community doesn't jump from one to the next.

    How is SnD different from CS game modes?

    My name isn't a misspelled Nazi,god****.

  11. #60
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,783
    Rep Power
    192
    Points
    111,722 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Blacksite View Post
    I just don't support the idea of annual releases. Even Assassin's Creed III was in development for two and half years. Doesn't anyone find anything wrong with playing a game for a year and then abandoning it, only to go back to it and praise it for being the better game when it really fell short to begin with?
    Technically COD games take longer than a year to develop, it just happens so that two teams put out their own COD so it seems like a yearly release. They do share assets but the two games are different enough to have two different set of fans. Though BO has sort of blurred that line.

    AC has been a pretty consistent release as well...while they also take long to put out, it's similar to COD in respect that they still come out with frequently.

    Why do developers that bring in so much money for publishers continue to operate as though they're going out of business while development studios like Rockstar North take their time in developing and marketing their games?
    IW/Treyarch market their games well. As for Rockstar, well they can't come out with a new game every year because their games are so heavily reliant on single player content. That's just simply not possible.

  12. #61
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,783
    Rep Power
    192
    Points
    111,722 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Naxi View Post
    I haven't bought a CoD game since 4. I'm still bombarded with ads and discussions about the latest title. It's just present all the time, there's no appreciation for it anymore. I still borrow them to go through the campaign, as I do not like multiplayer.

    Mechanically the game has always been sound, but it has still been the same game and over time it has gotten boring.
    Well there's your problem, you're playing the single player. I don't think anyone would go out of their way to defend single player campaign in COD.

    Vice City was released the year after.

    Every CoD game should have long legs, so the actual need for yearly release is negated. It just needs map packs or make it a subscription-based service entirely.

    As the multiplayer is similar to CS, I've stuck with that. I've been able to enjoy it for hundreds of dollars less, since the community doesn't jump from one to the next.

    How is SnD different from CS game modes?
    And Vice City didn't innovate much over GTA3, just had a bike and a chopper, actually took out some things if I recall correctly and was smaller in content and map.

    What online shooter has long legs after a year anyway? If they made it subscription, that would be nice but I think they don't want to do that as it would require HDD, they'll lose money and people might not get excited enough. On top of that, they wouldn't be able to make the changes they can if they have full control over the game...as every COD essentially is different from the previous one even if people can't see it.

    I think it would be difficult to pull off, and it would also lose its demand because a new release generally gets more attention than an expansion.

    SnD is not much different from CS's bomb plant.

  13. #62
    Forum Sage
    MATRIX 2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    D.C.
    Posts
    7,986
    Rep Power
    113
    Points
    43,692 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBettaKnow View Post
    I disagree - No COD is made in 1 year, they are both 2 year cycle games. There have been many games that have taken 2 or more years to develop and still don't match the quality of COD. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule.



    Compared to Halo is arguable. If you play standard modes on Halo then yes, it requires more skill - maybe patience -as you need to take down the other players shield before you can kill them. I normally played Halo 3 on SWAT (My skill was 42 in lone wolves and 38 in SWAT) what is shields down - it feels the same as COD as all you need is a good aim and you can take many players down with one shot to the head - as games should be.

    What I would like COD to do is to take a leaf out of Halo's match making. No game has ever had a better match making system than Halo. If it did that then maybe people would find it more of a challenge actually getting pitted against people with a similar skill level as themselves.



    I do agree that much hasn't changed but it comes back to how much can they change without changing what COD is, if that makes sense? Again, the skill thing is up for debate, it may not take 'skill' to play the game but it takes 'skill' to be good at the game. Someone who lacks 'skill' isn't going to be very likely to have a high KDR.

    It takes no skill to learn how to play football - doesn't mean we can all be professional does it.




    That is a problem with the console, it looks fine on PC. The consoles old tech are the reason why CoD looks the way it does. And you are right, people are satisfied with the lower resolution because it has a fluid feel to the game. I know i prefer higher frame rates to higher resolutions, thankfully i don't have to make that compromise. But just because the consoles can't handle to do much more you can't really blame that on the game.



    Again, if you want team work play in a match type that encourages team work. If you are playing TDM expecting team work then you are playing the wrong game. And another point, if you want team work - play with a group of friends. While i agree that team work is much more required in the RB6 games and somewhat to Halo I have played many matches of Terrorist Hunt - a mode that requires nothing but team work where i have team members not playing their part. Again - this is down to the gamers not wanting to do team work and go John Rambo.




    Sure, the ratings have dropped by 7 points but i still don't think the quality of the games have dropped. Repetitive, yes. But I can honestly say with the exception of the first BO i haven't felt cheated whenever i've bought a COD game.



    I have never bought a COD game for the single player so i couldn't care less about that portion of the game as i've never played them. I've only completed the CoD4.


    Don't for a second think I am under the impression COD can do no wrong, I know it isn't perfect but i also don't think it deserves all of the flack it gets.



    How has COD stifled the innovation in shooters? That is just wrong. What has stifled the innovation in shooters are the other games trying to emulate what COD does. COD has always been it's own game, it's the other developers that aren't trying to innovate their own game that will kill the genre. Your blaming a game for other games copying it when the fault lies with the other games developers. It's not like COD is saying "COPY ME COPY ME"



    Games don't need to build anticipation - not for me anyway. If a game is good, it's good and i'll get it. I couldn't care less if they brought out a new game every quarter, if the game is worth my money i'll buy it. If it isn't i won't buy it.

    Then what makes you think you have to buy each one? You made a good point, if it comes out too soon i may not want to play it. I completed Assassins Creed Revelations last year so i didn't want to buy AC:3 when it released a few months ago. I'll buy it when I am ready to buy it. Then again i'm not the type of gamer that needs to play every game on release so it may be different for me.



    I can agree with you but it's like everyone is forgetting that people are still going out and buying the latest game. People still enjoy COD regardless if the upgrade is minimal - isn't that the important thing, whether or not you enjoy it?
    I am aware of the handoff between the 2 COD studios. Otherwise what would be the point in having them both?

    AFAIK looking at Halo and Battlefield the 2 main competitors to COD? Their 2-3 year dev cycle clearly shows more improvements all around compared to COD. I'd have a lot more respect for COD if treyarch actually built their own engine without borrowing from IW's work.



    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).



    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.

    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.



    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 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.



    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)



    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I do think that's one of the biggest reasons why people pay up every year to get it. It's popular, everyone is playing it and that makes it more fun.


    Killstreaks are definitely unfair in some cases but there are ways to get around them...however, the general player will not care and yes it can be frustrating to see the game change by someone's killstreak. What I will say though is that if you play S&D, this won't be much of an issue, most people barely get the UAV in that mode much less anything more.

    I can understand your point, I do enjoy games where there are no killstreaks or perks or any sort of advantages but I also like this because I think of it as a FPS with some RPG elements.


    While I agree with your point, the problem is that if you don't add more features and make the game more crazy than the last one, people won't buy it. One of the biggest things people look at are perks, guns, and maps imo.
    I personally don't think every COD release is worth $60...I generally wait a little while before getting it. I agree here.


    Alright, point taken but how else could they have released like...8 games after it (exaggerating) and would've made all that money. I will say that I have enjoyed all of the CODs I've played and I agree that the series has faults but it does have somethings that no other shooter offers.

    It may not be innovating much from one release to another but what it brought this generation, is imo enough to call it the king of multiplayer shooters.





    It's not like GTA can do it even if they wanted to...the game is mainly single player, which means it needs a lot of content that can take a long time. COD can get away with it because online shooters generally just need new maps, new guns and some improvements. I think of the COD as expansions, which is why I have skipped a few in there. But overall, even if you look at all the issues such as multiple releases and not much difference between them...the game still offers something no other game this generation has been able to copy or introduce with improvements or even being remotely on par.

    I can't find my S&D fix anywhere else. Even games like CS don't have it (what COD is based off on) because the controls aren't there, the frame rate isn't there and the community isn't there.


    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.


    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.


    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.



    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.


    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.




    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.



    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.


    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?

  14. #63
    Ultimate Veteran
    Metal King Slime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    23
    Posts
    22,382
    Rep Power
    192
    Points
    7,727 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    IW/Treyarch market their games well. As for Rockstar, well they can't come out with a new game every year because their games are so heavily reliant on single player content. That's just simply not possible.
    I'm not saying they should. I like the way Rockstar operates. Money-wise, I don't see why Activision can't do the same.
    Thanks to Kwes for the avatar and Sylar for the signature!


  15. #64
    The Dawkness!
    Naxi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    PSN ID
    ElNaxi
    Age
    23
    Posts
    9,654
    Rep Power
    104
    Points
    7,718 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Well there's your problem, you're playing the single player. I don't think anyone would go out of their way to defend single player campaign in COD.



    And Vice City didn't innovate much over GTA3, just had a bike and a chopper, actually took out some things if I recall correctly and was smaller in content and map.

    What online shooter has long legs after a year anyway? If they made it subscription, that would be nice but I think they don't want to do that as it would require HDD, they'll lose money and people might not get excited enough. On top of that, they wouldn't be able to make the changes they can if they have full control over the game...as every COD essentially is different from the previous one even if people can't see it.

    I think it would be difficult to pull off, and it would also lose its demand because a new release generally gets more attention than an expansion.

    SnD is not much different from CS's bomb plant.
    I still try out the MP, since I won't criticize something I don't know about. 2 and 4 had great campaigns.

    Halo, CS, Team Fortress... a lot of multiplayer games have long legs. The differences are miniscule, it's more to do with balancing. These can easily be done with updates.

    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.
    Last edited by Naxi; 01-20-2013 at 21:44.

    My name isn't a misspelled Nazi,god****.

  16. #65
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    17,786
    Rep Power
    127
    Points
    61,902 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    vicie city map is bigger than GTA3 but not by much

    What game keeps peopel playign after a year? I have no idea but watch this video while you thnk.

    Last edited by keefy; 01-20-2013 at 21:47.

  17. #66
    Super Elite
    robvandam111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Miami, Fl
    PSN ID
    robvandam111
    Age
    24
    Posts
    2,410
    Rep Power
    44
    Points
    22,400 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style


    Same junk...nothing new. Waste of money.

  18. #67
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,783
    Rep Power
    192
    Points
    111,722 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by MATRIX 2 View Post
    I am aware of the handoff between the 2 COD studios. Otherwise what would be the point in having them both?

    AFAIK looking at Halo and Battlefield the 2 main competitors to COD? Their 2-3 year dev cycle clearly shows more improvements all around compared to COD. I'd have a lot more respect for COD if treyarch actually built their own engine without borrowing from IW's work.
    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.

    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 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).
    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.

    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.
    Ok but your argument shorts fall when you look at the games as a whole. Overall COD requires more skill than Halo.

    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.
    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.

    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)
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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)
    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!

    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.
    What developers? When was this? Are you talking about DLC such as BF3 puts out?

    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.
    I'm not understanding this comparison. Those games are completely different.

    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.

    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.
    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.

    As far as I can tell COD does the best job of milking when you look at all the shooting games out there.
    True.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    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.
    Ok, why don't you play regular SnD (not saying hardcore because I'm going easy on you) and post your video here.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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?
    And why is that COD's fault? Halo didn't have competition either when it came out on Xbox.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blacksite View Post
    I'm not saying they should. I like the way Rockstar operates. Money-wise, I don't see why Activision can't do the same.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Naxi View Post
    I still try out the MP, since I won't criticize something I don't know about. 2 and 4 had great campaigns.

    Halo, CS, Team Fortress... a lot of multiplayer games have long legs. The differences are miniscule, it's more to do with balancing. These can easily be done with updates.
    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.

    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    vicie city map is bigger than GTA3 but not by much

    What game keeps peopel playign after a year? I have no idea but watch this video while you thnk.

    Hmm...Vice City just felt smaller to me.

  19. #68
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,783
    Rep Power
    192
    Points
    111,722 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by robvandam111 View Post


    Same junk...nothing new. Waste of money.
    You can say that about almost any online shooter installment by looking at videos. Even then I think MW3 looks boring and dull.

  20. #69
    Supreme Veteran
    Ixion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    New York
    PSN ID
    MagicManGSC
    Age
    24
    Posts
    19,938
    Rep Power
    160
    Points
    70,820 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    I like Call of Duty, but the law of diminishing returns has finally stopped me from playing the series.

    Each new game doesn't feel fresh enough anymore. I was still really into the series up to Modern Warfare 2, and then I just started playing each game less and less. So I decided not to buy Black Ops II this year.

  21. #70
    Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    PSN ID
    Chickenooble
    Posts
    132
    Rep Power
    13
    Points
    1,785 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    1) Great controls (extremely important in a multiplayer shooter...or in any shooter...or any game for that matter).

    2) Abundance of multiplayer modes.

    3) 60fps or close to it most of the time.

    4) Perks...although this is more like a preference. I do enjoy games with or without them although I can't think of a single game that has done it at least decently as COD has this generation.
    That's nice and all, but the people who fawn over the series are normally knuckle-dragging window lickers. When you have such a large base of neanderthals who like slamming buttons and boasting about a K/D ratio (something that has killed games), then there is plenty reason to hate the game.

    1) $#@! community.
    2) $#@! players.
    3) $#@! graphics.
    4) $#@! genre-breaking additions, like K/D and Kill-streaks
    5) $#@! skill needed; run and gun with no consequence for death.

  22. #71
    Ultimate Veteran
    Metal King Slime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    23
    Posts
    22,382
    Rep Power
    192
    Points
    7,727 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    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.
    I don't really mind if other people enjoy it. I've played Call of Duty: Finest Hour, a little bit of Call of Duty 3, Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 and all of them were just okay.

    I can see Activision turning the series into a multiplayer-only experience e.g. Team Fortress 2 and have EA follow suit with Battlefield because that's really the only aspect of the game people care about. You might as well put all of your time and resources into it.
    Last edited by Metal King Slime; 01-20-2013 at 23:27.
    Thanks to Kwes for the avatar and Sylar for the signature!


  23. #72
    Supreme Veteran
    claud3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Agartha
    PSN ID
    sophieskyrim126Era
    Age
    30
    Posts
    17,633
    Rep Power
    128
    Points
    1,067 (0 Banked)
    Items Tommy VercettiGTA Claude
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    look the end result is the C.O.D, GTA, GERS OF WARS, MASS EFFECT, BIOSHOCK etc etc.... Everyone has a game hate and yes some more so on C.O.D

    but the realism is and this is fact, we all do not have to love every game that come out and have to play it

    C.O.D has it's faults and so does the games i mentioned... Does not make C.O.D anything special in getting singled out

    It's just the fact it has more hate on it, because it might do with the fact ex-C.O.D players have had either bad experiences or got feud up with playing the series or sick or the same $#@! over and over again

    So yes many will hate, but others will hate other games equally... Makes no sense singling out one game over others... Why because it's the most famous game to date and because it's played by millions around the world

    It's just a freaking series that has had good press and bad press... So promoting it here under the words WHY IS C.O.D HATED SO MUCH

    You have just actually got people to just check it out and you have either got people to enjoy the game or made them hate it

    It's the way it is

    I am no expert on this game and i do not know why many love it or hate it... But i hate it because of as i said, online $#@!s and cheaters online
    Plato and Aristotle, a detail of The School of Athens, a fresco by Raphael. Aristotle gestures to the earth, representing his belief in knowledge

  24. #73
    Superior Member
    Old Man Gamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    840
    Rep Power
    23
    Points
    7,850 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ixion View Post
    I like Call of Duty, but the law of diminishing returns has finally stopped me from playing the series.

    Each new game doesn't feel fresh enough anymore. I was still really into the series up to Modern Warfare 2, and then I just started playing each game less and less. So I decided not to buy Black Ops II this year.
    I think this post hits the nail on the head. The changes are so small that CoD games feel and play basically the same.

    Games like Battlefield and Halo have enough changes to make the games feel fresh.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    I don't need no stinkin' signature!

  25. #74
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    30,783
    Rep Power
    192
    Points
    111,722 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by keefy View Post
    What game keeps peopel playign after a year? I have no idea but watch this video while you thnk.

    These games are outliers. Not to mention, they stop improving. I don't want to play a 20 year old game. I already think games this generation are getting old and can't wait for next gen. I guess I just prefer it this way. It's not like I keep the games, I sell 'em after I'm done playing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ixion View Post
    I like Call of Duty, but the law of diminishing returns has finally stopped me from playing the series.

    Each new game doesn't feel fresh enough anymore. I was still really into the series up to Modern Warfare 2, and then I just started playing each game less and less. So I decided not to buy Black Ops II this year.
    I understand that but at the same time, I have a slight suspicion that you might not be into online shooters much or maybe that's not the genre of your choice. I have played less and less of the series as well but I see myself coming back to it again and again because it still offers something I have looked around for but can't find it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chickenooble View Post
    That's nice and all, but the people who fawn over the series are normally knuckle-dragging window lickers. When you have such a large base of neanderthals who like slamming buttons and boasting about a K/D ratio (something that has killed games), then there is plenty reason to hate the game.

    1) $#@! community.
    2) $#@! players.
    3) $#@! graphics.
    4) $#@! genre-breaking additions, like K/D and Kill-streaks
    5) $#@! skill needed; run and gun with no consequence for death.
    K/D was around before, just that people didn't actually calculate it. I remember in SOCOM, we would look at kill to death ratio. If someone was killing 15 people in a game and dying twice, that was considered good. Now we just have more detail and everything is recorded.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blacksite View Post
    I don't really mind if other people enjoy it. I've played Call of Duty: Finest Hour, a little bit of Call of Duty 3, Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2 and all of them were just okay.

    I can see Activision turning the series into a multiplayer-only experience e.g. Team Fortress 2 and have EA follow suit with Battlefield because that's really the only aspect of the game people care about. You might as well put all of your time and resources into it.
    But when you talk about the COD games you've played, you're talking about single player right? I know Finest Hour was the first one...or one of the earlier ones. Think it was the first one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Man Gamer View Post
    I think this post hits the nail on the head. The changes are so small that CoD games feel and play basically the same.

    Games like Battlefield and Halo have enough changes to make the games feel fresh.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
    BF3 was a big change but Halo? I have not seen anything out of ordinary there. Can you be transported through air? Does it have flying (not the hover) vehicles yet? Those things would be considered game-changing. Of course they'd need to create much bigger maps for those sort of vehicles, it would make them go back to the drawing board and evolve the game...which I hoped from Halo 2.

    BF3 did a good job with adding vehicular war and they improved quite a bit on guns as well, not to mention the maps being extremely large.

    I feel that if people are saying that COD doesn't keep it fresh, I can certainly understand that as they come out with a new one every year and that's difficult to do. But over time, they have added a lot of changes to the original gameplay and have improved quite a lot imo. I don't think they have done a bad job compared to other developers. While the changes aren't big on a yearly basis, they are still consistent with other shooters when looking at the overall progression.

    I see about the same differences that you see in Halo, KZ, UC or GoW. In fact, we see some changes in those games due to COD. If anything, we should be angry at other developers for not coming up with their own innovations.

    I feel like people who hate COD are generally ones that are expecting a robust single player campaign and/or online shooters aren't their primary choice of genre. If you don't care about something to begin with, of course you won't find the changes.

  26. #75
    Dedicated Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Oklahoma
    PSN ID
    Foraeli
    Posts
    1,062
    Rep Power
    17
    Points
    12,958 (0 Banked)
    For every fan, there is a hater. I think that sums it up well. But also, the graphics have been showing their age, and thus people are going to be more critical about the unchanging gameplay and repetitive environments. And the yearly releases make it feel more meh, and it makes it hard to want to keep up with the series. Also, so many problems with the multiplayer that may never get fixed like lag compensation; if you ever had lag compensation in a BlazBlue game, people would flip like crazy, but in Call of Duty, you have to muster up the ability to tolerate and compensate for the game's downfalls. That's my view on it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.