Call Of Duty: Advanced Warfare | News/Info/Speculation

fergus1001

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The one with the warping knife?

Ah yeah made for some good "****ing hacker " killcam commentary but mw2 was a refinement of the improvements made in cod 4 multiplayer and then the invations stopped instead we just got a gimmick weapon thrown in to make it look interesting ala black ops 1 and the tomahawk


I love zombies though and I want it to go back to how it was in waw Der rise that was a high point for me in the call of duty series

So much so that me and my group of friends played a few rounds of mw2 and then we went back and played zombies for the rest of the night fun times

MadYaker

I've always hated the multiplayer in COD. But I really enjoyed the single player in MW2 and 3. I might pick up blops 2 if the single player in that is good as well, it must be cheap by now.

TerrorFirmer

MadYaker wrote: »

I've always hated the multiplayer in COD. But I really enjoyed the single player in MW2 and 3. I might pick up blops 2 if the single player in that is good as well, it must be cheap by now.

Parts of it are good, but all in all its pretty weak. The first Black Ops was much better, one of my favorite COD single players. Ghosts is the only one I've actively disliked (COD3 was weak enough as well but that was a rush job forced on Treyarch so I don't blame them for it)

Retr0gamer

I found world at war really boring to be honest. All the treyarch cod games did nothing for me except the first black ops which while not great was still fun.

Cuddlesworth

fergus1001 wrote: »

Ah yeah made for some good "****ing hacker " killcam commentary but mw2 was a refinement of the improvements made in cod 4 multiplayer and then the invations stopped instead we just got a gimmick weapon thrown in to make it look interesting ala black ops 1 and the tomahawk

I stopped at MW2, so I can't comment on the rest. But between the two of them, I found the first game had a heavy emphasis on immediate non-stop action with perks that made it difficult for the other team. The second had a emphasis on gimmicks, such as the warping knife and placed the killstreaks into a position where they didn't just infer a advantage, they instead dominated the game. Most games were decided within the first 30 seconds.

Retr0gamer

The whole rewarding the player or team that is doing well just does not work for me, it just makes the whole thing frustrating to be on the losing team and makes it hard for less skilled players to get into the game. Really the further you get ahead e harder it should be to keep that position. Something like classic capture the flag, the more you are in the lead the more thinly spread you are and more resources you need to dedicate to defense and the more vulnerable your position is. Even stuff like mario kart where holding the lead position is very challenging since you get worse items, although that takes it to the wrong extreme in many cases.

I think titanfall handles this a lot better. Losing is actually fun with the mad dash to extraction being one of the best parts of the game.

jantheman91

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The whole rewarding the player or team that is doing well just does not work for me, it just makes the whole thing frustrating to be on the losing team and makes it hard for less skilled players to get into the game. Really the further you get ahead e harder it should be to keep that position. Something like classic capture the flag, the more you are in the lead the more thinly spread you are and more resources you need to dedicate to defense and the more vulnerable your position is. Even stuff like mario kart where holding the lead position is very challenging since you get worse items, although that takes it to the wrong extreme in many cases.

I think titanfall handles this a lot better. Losing is actually fun with the mad dash to extraction being one of the best parts of the game.

Less skilled players should be punished for being less skilled. That is the exact problem with Ghosts. It has been dumbed down to cater for the thumbless, and as a result leaves the skilled frustrated.

Black Ops 2 got it bang on the money. If you sucked - you got destroyed over and over again. If you can't improve/deal with it, you should probably find a new game.

C14N

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I stopped at MW2, so I can't comment on the rest. But between the two of them, I found the first game had a heavy emphasis on immediate non-stop action with perks that made it difficult for the other team. The second had a emphasis on gimmicks, such as the warping knife and placed the killstreaks into a position where they didn't just infer a advantage, they instead dominated the game. Most games were decided within the first 30 seconds.

I felt the exact same way. If you were playing with people only a little better than you, you were still getting completely destroyed because the killstreaks led to rewards that gave you more killstreaks.

jantheman91 wrote: »

Less skilled players should be punished for being less skilled. That is the exact problem with Ghosts. It has been dumbed down to cater for the thumbless, and as a result leaves the skilled frustrated.

Unless you're playing competitively, most people don't want to be either punished to the point of frustration or wiping the floor with others. There's no fun in a walkover for either side and good game design helps balance this in non-competitive environments, not exacerbate the situation.

Retr0gamer

It's not even the frustration factor, it just doesn't work for me in team multiplayer. If you find yourself in a dominant position it should be harder to hold that position rather than easier. If you are skilled enough you should be able to hold that position.

What CoD does is totally destroy the whole risk reward system good games are built on.

muppetkiller

I recently bought BLACK OPS1 for the PC after loving it on the xbox. It's still the best Multiplayer experience imo .

It's still jam packed with servers and has the best Maps I think out of all the COD games.

It's something like 9.99 at the moment of those cd-key sites (non-russian ones too)

Cuddlesworth

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's not even the frustration factor, it just doesn't work for me in team multiplayer. If you find yourself in a dominant position it should be harder to hold that position rather than easier. If you are skilled enough you should be able to hold that position.

What CoD does is totally destroy the whole risk reward system good games are built on.

I do miss the nuke though. That really was a big "f" you to the other team.

Randall Floyd

This shouldn't be getting a 360 and PS3 release, it just confirms that it's another money making exercise rather than a genuine attempt to do something new and interesting with the franchise.

Potential-Monke

People are gonna bitch and moan constantly about CoD, regardless if it's an improvement or not. People have their mind made up about a new CoD game before it's released and if they do pick it up, they're starting with a negative view of it and that skews the view, even if the game is good.

I buy CoD every year, because i know what i'm getting. It's the Expendables of the gaming world, high intensity 'splosion after 'splosion, with a sometimes good story, good voice acting and pretty good visuals. I don't mind if it does nothing new, as long as it's entertaining. I will never expect a seriously deep or an award winning story. But it has it's moments, like (i'm gonna spoiler them)

crawling from the tank after the nuke going off, the hanging at the end of MW3, etc

.

The multiplayer is also expected to be pretty much the same, with perks and scorestreaks changing up the different games. If it keeps the intensity of the previous games and makes it enjoyable (which they are to me) then i'll lap it up.

However, Ghosts has taught me a lesson: don't buy the hardened edition on launch. I did for Ghosts and i played no more than a couple of weeks online before trading it in. Ghosts is the weakest in the series, and the MP is a mess. If Sledgehammer can avoid the mistakes IW did with Ghosts, it will sell like hotcakes.

And for people calling it Call of Duty: Crysis - What about it? It's not going to be the exact same, and a lot of games these days have parts of other games in them. It must be hard to make an FPS which tries to stay grounded in reality (exo-suits and camo are being tested irl) when there has been a massive back catalog of similar games, and if they went back to WW2 times, or even recent times, people would complain that it's a copy of X game.

_Kaiser_

Just saw the trailer on YT - gotta love Kevin Spacey!

Basically then this is House of Cards - Season 3: The Game

fergus1001

Potential-Monke wrote: »

People are gonna bitch and moan constantly about CoD, regardless if it's an improvement or not. People have their mind made up about a new CoD game before it's released and if they do pick it up, they're starting with a negative view of it and that skews the view, even if the game is good.

I buy CoD every year, because i know what i'm getting. It's the Expendables of the gaming world, high intensity 'splosion after 'splosion, with a sometimes good story, good voice acting and pretty good visuals. I don't mind if it does nothing new, as long as it's entertaining. I will never expect a seriously deep or an award winning story. But it has it's moments, like (i'm gonna spoiler them)

crawling from the tank after the nuke going off, the hanging at the end of MW3, etc

.

The multiplayer is also expected to be pretty much the same, with perks and scorestreaks changing up the different games. If it keeps the intensity of the previous games and makes it enjoyable (which they are to me) then i'll lap it up.

However, Ghosts has taught me a lesson: don't buy the hardened edition on launch. I did for Ghosts and i played no more than a couple of weeks online before trading it in. Ghosts is the weakest in the series, and the MP is a mess. If Sledgehammer can avoid the mistakes IW did with Ghosts, it will sell like hotcakes.

And for people calling it Call of Duty: Crysis - What about it? It's not going to be the exact same, and a lot of games these days have parts of other games in them. It must be hard to make an FPS which tries to stay grounded in reality (exo-suits and camo are being tested irl) when there has been a massive back catalog of similar games, and if they went back to WW2 times, or even recent times, people would complain that it's a copy of X game.

I was the same as yourself but the same thing every year has turned me off it and the lone soldier gameplay as well

Moved on to battlefield myself

jantheman91

C14N wrote: »

I felt the exact same way. If you were playing with people only a little better than you, you were still getting completely destroyed because the killstreaks led to rewards that gave you more killstreaks.



Unless you're playing competitively, most people don't want to be either punished to the point of frustration or wiping the floor with others. There's no fun in a walkover for either side and good game design helps balance this in non-competitive environments, not exacerbate the situation.

So what you're saying is there should be no skill-gap? That is the exact problem with COD Ghosts and is a major reason even public players absolutely hate it.

Black Ops II got it bang on the money. The game was developed with a skill-gap in mind and as a result those who weren't great struggled, and those who were good done exceptionally well. This is exactly how a multiplayer FPS should be - competitive or otherwise.

If you suck at a game, don't play it.

I'm dire at FIFA, but you don't see me complaining. I just don't play it.

C14N

jantheman91 wrote: »

So what you're saying is there should be no skill-gap? That is the exact problem with COD Ghosts and is a major reason even public players absolutely hate it.

Black Ops II got it bang on the money. The game was developed with a skill-gap in mind and as a result those who weren't great struggled, and those who were good done exceptionally well. This is exactly how a multiplayer FPS should be - competitive or otherwise.

If you suck at a game, don't play it.

I'm dire at FIFA, but you don't see me complaining. I just don't play it.

No, that's not what I'm saying. It needs to get a balance between being approachable for newbies and rewarding for skilled players, MW2 steers way too far into the latter to the point of being unfairly unbalanced. Call of Duty 4 and World at War both had some balancing issues, as do all games, but it was a lot better than MW2 was. You can even have games like Counter Strike or Team Fortress where there are some incredibly skilled players/teams who will wipe the floor with newbies but it still doesn't feel unfair because it doesn't pile extra rewards on you as soon as you start inching ahead.

Saying "if you suck, don't play it" is a cop out, everyone sucks at it at some point. I sucked at Guitar Hero once, but it had a fair difficulty curve that lets you gradually reach expert level. I sucked at Smash Bros once but because it was balanced and approachable, I got pretty good at it over time and at least when I play against others who aren't much good, I can give myself a handicap so it's still fun for them. It's really no fun when you sit down and play MW2 with some friends who are a little more skilled and as soon as you go just a few kills down, the entire thing just feels futile from that point onward. In non-competitive games, there should be chances to allow you to catch up even if you do go a bit behind, otherwise you're just spending 10 minutes playing a game you've already lost. Really good players should still be able to win comfortably, but the point is that they should have to be really good for that to happen.

Nuri Sahin

Azza wrote: »

So whats the general consensus on which COD had the best singleplayer and which COD had the best multiplayer?

COD4 and COD4.

Single player was just an all round fun experience with a wide range in type of of missions and the inclusion of arcade mode was a nice touch too. The characters while you wouldn't expect to be fleshed out like that in say RPG games for example, were still characters you still cared about somewhat. Some had recurring roles in future titles, but it was never the same really.

COD4's mutliplayer I'll always stand by in saying it's the most fun I've had playing an FPS game. It wasn't perfect and it needed tweaking by the devs as I said previously, but it was so close to run n gun perfection. Perhaps there's an element of sentiment due to the time I was playing COD4 too. I was in uni at the time and everyone I knew male wise was playing it (if not Halo) it seemed.

It's the only COD game I've kept. All the others I've either given away or traded in long ago. COD4 will remain, even if I may never turn on the PS3 again (I probably will at some point, but not for some time).

Nuri Sahin

fergus1001 wrote: »

Ah yeah made for some good "****ing hacker " killcam commentary but mw2 was a refinement of the improvements made in cod 4 multiplayer and then the invations stopped instead we just got a gimmick weapon thrown in to make it look interesting ala black ops 1 and the tomahawk


I love zombies though and I want it to go back to how it was in waw Der rise that was a high point for me in the call of duty series

So much so that me and my group of friends played a few rounds of mw2 and then we went back and played zombies for the rest of the night fun times

I always thought zombies was a bit over hyped, tbh. Maybe it's because I got into it late which didn't help, I don't know. I thoroughly enjoyed the over the top view zombie game however in Black Ops 1, probably because it reminded me of Smash TV on the SNES which I adored back in the day.

Nuri Sahin

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I do miss the nuke though. That really was a big "f" you to the other team.

The the addition of the nuke on MW2 and in turn MOAB in MW3 was a terrible idea. It was one of the main reasons people started camping in COD games. You'd get the occasional bad camper in COD4, but in MW2 it was something else. Not only for the nuke, but the chopper gunner, AC130, etc, etc.

It's the reason why in Black Ops I decided to just run UAV, counter UAV and the Blackbird, I just wanted to run n gun to my heart's content.

Nuri Sahin

Potential-Monke wrote: »

People are gonna bitch and moan constantly about CoD, regardless if it's an improvement or not. People have their mind made up about a new CoD game before it's released and if they do pick it up, they're starting with a negative view of it and that skews the view, even if the game is good.

I buy CoD every year, because i know what i'm getting. It's the Expendables of the gaming world, high intensity 'splosion after 'splosion, with a sometimes good story, good voice acting and pretty good visuals. I don't mind if it does nothing new, as long as it's entertaining. I will never expect a seriously deep or an award winning story. But it has it's moments, like (i'm gonna spoiler them)

crawling from the tank after the nuke going off, the hanging at the end of MW3, etc

.

The multiplayer is also expected to be pretty much the same, with perks and scorestreaks changing up the different games. If it keeps the intensity of the previous games and makes it enjoyable (which they are to me) then i'll lap it up.

However, Ghosts has taught me a lesson: don't buy the hardened edition on launch. I did for Ghosts and i played no more than a couple of weeks online before trading it in. Ghosts is the weakest in the series, and the MP is a mess. If Sledgehammer can avoid the mistakes IW did with Ghosts, it will sell like hotcakes.

And for people calling it Call of Duty: Crysis - What about it? It's not going to be the exact same, and a lot of games these days have parts of other games in them. It must be hard to make an FPS which tries to stay grounded in reality (exo-suits and camo are being tested irl) when there has been a massive back catalog of similar games, and if they went back to WW2 times, or even recent times, people would complain that it's a copy of X game.

I don't mind people liking COD, so long as they know what the game is and they don't make it out to be some grand 10 out 10 rated game. Activision throws out a product that generally appeals to the prepubescents (not saying you're this!) and what not, and it sells and will continue to sell. Good for them. I'm not going to settle for a product that's getting worse, IMO. People have said I am a COD hater when I'm actually a massive fan of the series pre-MW3 really, sure, I used to moderate the COD forum here on boards, but when my interest waned, so did my will to moderate the forum. I could see the forum was becoming quieter by the month too towards the end. The COD forum is quite telling now I feel at least in terms of Boards. The forum was bustling and full of activity up to MW3. Now it's a ghost town. Amusing the latest game is called Ghosts. But seriously, the way the forum has gone is somewhat sad.

C14N

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

I don't mind people liking COD, so long as they know what the game is and they don't make it out to be some grand 10 out 10 rated game. Activision throws out a product that generally appeals to the prepubescents (not saying you're this!) and what not, and it sells and will continue to sell. Good for them. I'm not going to settle for a product that's getting worse, IMO. People have said I am a COD hater when I'm actually a massive fan of the series pre-MW3 really, sure, I used to moderate the COD forum here on boards, but when my interest waned, so did my will to moderate the forum. I could see the forum was becoming quieter by the month too towards the end. The COD forum is quite telling now I feel at least in terms of Boards. The forum was bustling and full of activity up to MW3. Now it's a ghost town. Amusing the latest game is called Ghosts. But seriously, the way the forum has gone is somewhat sad.

I wonder does the annual release model tend to kind of hurt the series in that way. I mean it's kind of like the sports games, once you get this year's version you aren't going be playing the previous one much any more, compared to something like TF2 where it snowballs more players over the years and maintains steady interest.

Potential-Monke

C14N wrote: »

I wonder does the annual release model tend to kind of hurt the series in that way. I mean it's kind of like the sports games, once you get this year's version you aren't going be playing the previous one much any more, compared to something like TF2 where it snowballs more players over the years and maintains steady interest.

You hit on something there, and maybe it's the same as CoD, but i don't play any FIFA's or PES's, or Football/Championship Managers, but do they get the same amount of slack as CoD gets? They release more than 1 game a year (between 2000 and 2009 incl, FIFA released 15 games!).

NTMK

Potential-Monke wrote: »

You hit on something there, and maybe it's the same as CoD, but i don't play any FIFA's or PES's, or Football/Championship Managers, but do they get the same amount of slack as CoD gets? They release more than 1 game a year (between 2000 and 2009 incl, FIFA released 15 games!).

COD is on a 2 year dev cycle compared to fifa/fm/pes 1 and yet if you compare the difference between fifa 08 and 14 to COD4 and ghosts fifa is the most improved

most inbetween fifa games are done by other teams in ea canada or are literally a reskin with the exception of the 2010 wc game since a lot of engine dev went into it

gizmo

Potential-Monke wrote: »

You hit on something there, and maybe it's the same as CoD, but i don't play any FIFA's or PES's, or Football/Championship Managers, but do they get the same amount of slack as CoD gets? They release more than 1 game a year (between 2000 and 2009 incl, FIFA released 15 games!).

CoD gets slack?

Randall Floyd

I remember a couple of years ago when FIFAs big selling point for the year was a new type of defending system, went around to a friends who had bought it and asked him how he was getting on adjusting to it, I just turned it off he said, made me laugh .

MagicIRL

Call fo Duty 4, for me, was near perfect. Everything from the soundtrack to the single player, the environments, the maps and mission styles, the plot and then topped off with a fantastic multiplayer system that was only let down by a matchmaking system as opposed to dedicated servers.

What a game. I played it until support was dropped from it and own it both on PC and on the 360. Ever since then, the series has been in freefall. MW2 was ok. Nothing near CoD4, but you could see the change happening and I haven't bought a CoD since.

I'm new to this forum by the way. Hello!

Stone Deaf 4evr

For a series thats supposedly dead / dying, the thread wasnt long ballooning up to over 120 posts.

I reckon they'll have to seriously hit it out of the park on the multiplayer front to undo some of the harm that ghosts has done.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

For a series thats supposedly dead / dying, the thread wasnt long ballooning up to over 120 posts.

I reckon they'll have to seriously hit it out of the park on the multiplayer front to undo some of the harm that ghosts has done.

COD will always generate interest. Be it positive or negative to be fare.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Randall Floyd wrote: »

This shouldn't be getting a 360 and PS3 release, it just confirms that it's another money making exercise rather than a genuine attempt to do something new and interesting with the franchise.

I cant remember where I read it, but I think the current gen version is being handled by a different team, and may not even be the same game - kind of like when we had Call of Duty 2 on xbox 360 and "call of duty 2 - big red one" on the original xbox.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Oh,

and if this game doesnt use the microsoft servers that titanfall uses, It'll be a crying shame. getting 16ms ping to a server in dublin is game changing.

Stone Deaf 4evr

M!Ck^ wrote: »

COD will always generate interest. Be it positive or negative to be fare.

I'm at least mildly curious about this, It could be great if they use the microsoft servers like titanfall does, played a bit of black ops 2 last night for the first time in ages, the connection quality varies like mad.

Randall Floyd

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

For a series thats supposedly dead / dying, the thread wasnt long ballooning up to over 120 posts.

I reckon they'll have to seriously hit it out of the park on the multiplayer front to undo some of the harm that ghosts has done.

The thing I couldn't understand about when Ghosts was released was the amount people that were saying "ah its just more of the same like MW3", there were so many things wrong with Ghosts that it made MW3 look like a flawless masterpiece by comparison.
At times it felt like the only thing the two had in common was that Call of Duty was written on both boxes.

super_furry

Know what I'd love? A best-of CoD. Give me an upscaled Black Ops 2 engine with all the maps from COD4, MW2 and a few from MW3, BLOPS 1 and 2.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Randall Floyd wrote: »

The thing I couldn't understand about when Ghosts was released was the amount people that were saying "ah its just more of the same like MW3", there were so many things wrong with Ghosts that it made MW3 look like a flawless masterpiece by comparison.
At times it felt like the only thing the two had in common was that Call of Duty was written on both boxes.

In fairness, most of the lads we play with didnt stick at it for too long, but it seemed to take the rest of the world about 3 months to cop on that twas a load of auld ****e. It definitely soured people on the franchise though, you can see that from the amount of people that seem to have stopped playing altogether.

of course, I made the mistake of getting battlefield 4 on xbox one, a great game when it works, which is hardly ever. :mad:

I noticed you got titanfall on 360, how're you finding it?

Randall Floyd

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

I noticed you got titanfall on 360, how're you finding it?

Yeah enjoying it, needs a few more game modes etc. though, feels like a good platform for Respawn to build on with future games.

fergus1001

super_furry wrote: »

Know what I'd love? A best-of CoD. Give me an upscaled Black Ops 2 engine with all the maps from COD4, MW2 and a few from MW3, BLOPS 1 and 2.

A multiplayer only game with "best of" map collection and the best mechanics taken out of all games and put into it

Nuri Sahin

C14N wrote: »

I wonder does the annual release model tend to kind of hurt the series in that way. I mean it's kind of like the sports games, once you get this year's version you aren't going be playing the previous one much any more, compared to something like TF2 where it snowballs more players over the years and maintains steady interest.

It does and it doesn't. I always believed too much was never a good thing when it comes to COD, but not so much in regards to the yearly release necessarily, though it's certainly a factor that won't be changing any time soon till the current audience in the main starts waking up. Activision like EA is relentlessness, they rather see a series die if short - medium term profit is guaranteed. I've mentioned the Tony Hawk series by them, and someone else mentioned Guitar Hero as prime examples, even if they're more niche games at this stage whereas before it was cool thing to be playing either. I've gone off in a bit of a tangent, but it has more to do with the content within any one game. I get with trying to improve the game by adding new game type/modes, guns, maps, etc, etc, etc. But it's the other things that have soured the franchise for me and many. Namely perks and killstreaks. Map design as far as I am concerned as consistently worsened every year too.

In COD4, I was fairly indifferent about one or two maps when playing certain game types such as the map Downpour which was only good for Search and Destroy and horrible for everything other game type, but the map suited a specific game type at least. It had a purpose behind the design, that was most evident. Creek (one of the four COD4 DLC maps) was another one, it was clearly designed for Search and Destroy in mind. So many of the maps since served no real purpose other than to spawn trap which unfortunately many COD players live to play for in their ultimate goal of thinking they'll get laid by holding a good K/D it seemed like from MW2 onwards! I know from my time in the COD forum that people set out for that. Team up and spawn trap the other team, they thought they were brilliant.

COD4 brought in the perk system which for many that was a breath of fresh air, and it was just that. As the games progressed more elaborate perks became part and parcel of COD, all the while retaining the bad few perks from COD4 for years. Some even rewarding bad players in the form of deathstreaks which is frankly absurd. Deathstreaks is another thing that shows how COD has catered for today's generation of gamers. If you want to improve, put in the time to improve, it's rather simple, harsh some might say, but I don't think so whatsoever.

Despite my mostly negative spiel about how things are have got to the point they are now, the competitive scene was usually decent up to when I had stopped playing/following in 2011 or so. You'd get the odd cretinous, annoying smack talkers, but it was a tight knit community up to the end of MW2 anyway. Much better than public games where 9 out of every 10 players cared about themselves.

Nuri Sahin

Randall Floyd wrote: »

The thing I couldn't understand about when Ghosts was released was the amount people that were saying "ah its just more of the same like MW3", there were so many things wrong with Ghosts that it made MW3 look like a flawless masterpiece by comparison.
At times it felt like the only thing the two had in common was that Call of Duty was written on both boxes.

Both are terribly average FPS games at best either way. MW3 was the wall to the car that was my interest in COD. The single worst game I've ever bought it's safe to say.

C14N

Potential-Monke wrote: »

You hit on something there, and maybe it's the same as CoD, but i don't play any FIFA's or PES's, or Football/Championship Managers, but do they get the same amount of slack as CoD gets? They release more than 1 game a year (between 2000 and 2009 incl, FIFA released 15 games!).

I'm sure some of those were just spinoffs of some kind (World Cup games or versions for Ngage:p). The main series is in the same boat as COD, releasing a new installment once a year. I don't think COD gets a lot of slack though, I'd say it's the industry's biggest straw-man for taking a whack at due to it's popularity and inability to innovate or change.

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

For a series thats supposedly dead / dying, the thread wasnt long ballooning up to over 120 posts.

It's only dying in the way that a fairly healthy 45 year old man with some back problems is technically dying. It's past it's peak but it's still got life left for a while yet. Nobody said it's dead, that would be absurd. If any other game got the sales that Ghosts got it would be considered a huge success.

Retr0gamer

I think the door is open for something new and better to come along and knock CoD off it's throne. It happened at the start of the last generation. Halo 3 was a shoe in for the multiplayer top spot until CoD 4 came out of no where.

2Mad2BeMad

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think the door is open for something new and better to come along and knock CoD off it's throne. It happened at the start of the last generation. Halo 3 was a shoe in for the multiplayer top spot until CoD 4 came out of no where.

and rightly so
cod4 deserved it

super_furry

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think the door is open for something new and better to come along and knock CoD off it's throne. It happened at the start of the last generation. Halo 3 was a shoe in for the multiplayer top spot until CoD 4 came out of no where.

It's not Titanfall, that's for sure. Holding out some hope that Destiny can do just that but so far it really just looks like Halo: Borderlands Edition.

Cuddlesworth

super_furry wrote: »

It's not Titanfall, that's for sure. Holding out some hope that Destiny can do just that but so far it really just looks like Halo: Borderlands Edition.

Looks a little bit like Titanfall tanked on the scheme of things, even considering its a new IP in the world of remakes. Its a pity, I quite like the game. But there is a certain something in terms of replayability that its missing.

Retr0gamer

I think EA were banking on call of duty numbers which is just stupid. It's a new ip and the end of the generation means slow sales on the previous gen and small install base on the new consoles.

Bohrio

I know I am going to get a lot of hate for what I am about to say but I just find it hard to believe that people will actually consider buying another CoD game after they way that they have been treating us for the last few years.

And I am not talking about the new games not meeting expectation etc its actually the opposite, the fact that I can't play any of the older games because they are all hacked in some way doesnt bother anyone?

Seriously has everyone lost their selfrespect ?

how can you even consider buying more of their games is beyond me, I am sorry if I have offended anyone but what can I say...

gimli2112

That they allowed the old games to be hacked to hell seriously annoys me too. Obviously there's no money in it for them but the total apathy in relation to it bugs the hell out of me. I miss MW2

irish_goat

It annoys me too but I've gotten (and still do) get a lot of enjoyable playing hours out BLOPS2 so I'm happy enough.

gimli2112

Is BLOPS 2 hacked as well? Really didn't play much of it.

From memory Blops 1 wasn't hacked too bad. MW2 can be mental and not in a good way. Had some relatively minor issues in MW3 but haven't played it in a while and I believe MW and WAW were badly ruined by hackers.

irish_goat

gimli2112 wrote: »

Is BLOPS 2 hacked as well? Really didn't play much of it.

Not that I've noticed. MW2 is ridiculous, I attempted to play it a few weeks ago but gave up after about 30 mins.