Honestly, the best way to improve the CoD series is just to slow down the release cycle. I honestly feel that the biggest reason that people hate on the series (after the conformity bias of "one of my e-peers said they don't like it, so I don't either) is that the games are released too frequently after each other, which leads to frustration as a consequence of market saturation. If they released a new CoD game every 4, 3, or even 2 years, I'm willing to bet that there would be fewer people complaining about it (On a side note, this could largely be done by just getting rid of one of the two main developers for the series, the games technically have 2 year development cycles, but because they are staggered between two different companies they can be released annually).
Poll: How Would You Improve COD?
- Thread starter Deathmageddon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So the New Call of Duty... Call of Duty Dragon Riders. Its promo open would be very standard Call of Duty, some intruige some terrorist blah blah no one care then suddenly.
"Time to call out the big guns."
And Next Scene the main character who was you know shooty mcarmyguy hops on the back of a dragon flying over the battered New York to take out some neosoviet/nazi jet fighters.
"Time to call out the big guns."
And Next Scene the main character who was you know shooty mcarmyguy hops on the back of a dragon flying over the battered New York to take out some neosoviet/nazi jet fighters.
Have Free Radical make it, they did an amazing job with Timesplitters, spinoff sequel to a little known game, you've probably never heard of it...it's just Goldeneye. Despite Timesplitters being better in every way, it doesn't seem to carry the same weight as their other game Goldeneye.
But yes have them make a game, it'd wind up being over the top in some way and generally awesome.
But yes have them make a game, it'd wind up being over the top in some way and generally awesome.
Go back to World War 2, but as ground soldiers. Forget this magical super special secret agent stuff. I'm tired of being the pinnacle at which entire world wars rotate and end. I think we've seen to many games where the protaginists are super capabible demi-gods.
The most secret agent stuff I want to see if snipers.
Absolutely now conspiracy theories, please (as far as World War 2 goes). I think conspiracy theory games can be fun, especialy if it involves a young Barack Obama trying to sneak into the US from Kenya.
Also, space out the release cycle. It's a lot better for generating real hype. (look at how people react to any hint of a news from HafeLife or The Elders Scrolls or Fallout).
EDIT:
As far as who should make it...
Single Player--IW, Treyarch makes a mess of things
Multiplayer--Treyarch, IW makes a mess of things
Zombie/Survival/Spec Ops--Both, teamwork
The most secret agent stuff I want to see if snipers.
Absolutely now conspiracy theories, please (as far as World War 2 goes). I think conspiracy theory games can be fun, especialy if it involves a young Barack Obama trying to sneak into the US from Kenya.
Also, space out the release cycle. It's a lot better for generating real hype. (look at how people react to any hint of a news from HafeLife or The Elders Scrolls or Fallout).
EDIT:
As far as who should make it...
Single Player--IW, Treyarch makes a mess of things
Multiplayer--Treyarch, IW makes a mess of things
Zombie/Survival/Spec Ops--Both, teamwork
Get a different perspective? Maybe bring it back to the Second World War...OH or even better the First World War. Also make it for story, not just multiplayer with a story.
The poll seems like bandwagon talk to me. They both add their fair share of stuff, but IW probably adds more, while Treyarch improves the formula significantly.
IW added perks and killstreaks in CoD4, than pro perks and custom killstreaks in MW2 (perhaps attachments too, I started at CoD4.) That's the two main things that set it apart from other shooters. Treyarch's biggest addition was probably zombies, which is non-important concerning multiplayer. But I do prefer Treyarch's titles.
To improve it... I'd want a mode that takes the Battlefield approach, so I can play arcade action one day than a more epic war/battle type gameplay the next. With that; bigger maps, altered physics, no killstreaks but still lots of vehicles, and a more simplistic perk system...
But obviously still keep the normal formula that's more in line with old style arcade shooters.
Otherwise, as I've always maintained, I want atleast 40 maps at launch. DLC maps never feel as good. And I hate how one week after launch I've already played every map 30+ times. That's often why I eventually stop playing each title. I've experienced everything the game has to offer and I no longer have anything to look forward to.
IW added perks and killstreaks in CoD4, than pro perks and custom killstreaks in MW2 (perhaps attachments too, I started at CoD4.) That's the two main things that set it apart from other shooters. Treyarch's biggest addition was probably zombies, which is non-important concerning multiplayer. But I do prefer Treyarch's titles.
To improve it... I'd want a mode that takes the Battlefield approach, so I can play arcade action one day than a more epic war/battle type gameplay the next. With that; bigger maps, altered physics, no killstreaks but still lots of vehicles, and a more simplistic perk system...
But obviously still keep the normal formula that's more in line with old style arcade shooters.
Otherwise, as I've always maintained, I want atleast 40 maps at launch. DLC maps never feel as good. And I hate how one week after launch I've already played every map 30+ times. That's often why I eventually stop playing each title. I've experienced everything the game has to offer and I no longer have anything to look forward to.
so you mean go back to COD before they started copying MOH (seriouesly look at the first COD games compared to MOH)triggrhappy94 said:
Honestly? All I want them to do is lower the price.
I'm fine with them releasing the same game over and over - its what fans of a series want. I won't go into why I left the BF3 forums on the first day [Hint: Because half the people there were saying "I don't want these new mechanics, just give me BF2 reskinned PLS"], but if people want the same game over and over, there's no reason they shouldn't really get it.
However, charging $100 [Aus here] for a game that is basically the same as the previous one, is unfair. Every one of the more recent CoDs I've seen has been more akin to an expansion pack than a whole new game, and IMO should be priced accordingly.
What could CoD do to make itself more fun for me however?
Larger maps.
Vehicles.
Slower gameplay. I don't want a game where you can kill 5 people in under 10 seconds without some heavy artillery.
Maps designed for tactical warfare, rather than run and gun play.
A campaign that isn't shooting foreigners whilst things explode all around you, like if Michael Bay got an anti-Russian fetish for a day.
Health does not regenerate.
No killstreaks.
That would make it more enjoyable for me, though I'm pretty sure at least 60% of the people who like CoD ATM would hate it.
I'm fine with them releasing the same game over and over - its what fans of a series want. I won't go into why I left the BF3 forums on the first day [Hint: Because half the people there were saying "I don't want these new mechanics, just give me BF2 reskinned PLS"], but if people want the same game over and over, there's no reason they shouldn't really get it.
However, charging $100 [Aus here] for a game that is basically the same as the previous one, is unfair. Every one of the more recent CoDs I've seen has been more akin to an expansion pack than a whole new game, and IMO should be priced accordingly.
What could CoD do to make itself more fun for me however?
Larger maps.
Vehicles.
Slower gameplay. I don't want a game where you can kill 5 people in under 10 seconds without some heavy artillery.
Maps designed for tactical warfare, rather than run and gun play.
A campaign that isn't shooting foreigners whilst things explode all around you, like if Michael Bay got an anti-Russian fetish for a day.
Health does not regenerate.
No killstreaks.
That would make it more enjoyable for me, though I'm pretty sure at least 60% of the people who like CoD ATM would hate it.
Having you play as a normal soldier and have missions where you need to leave and not finish the mission because you had to be flown out do to losing your leg. Also WW1 but you fight on both sides.
Personally, out of the three Call of Duty games that I've played, I preferred how Black Ops felt. The guns may not have been very distinct between one another, but the ones that worked, worked well without being overpowered to the point of broken, like the UMP45 in Modern Warfare 2, with its LMG power, Sniper Rifle range, and SMG mobility.
Quickscoping is more than likely going to stay, simply due to its popularity with fans, and the fact that it makes Sniper Rifles more viable as a weapon class in constraints of Call of Duty's map size. But, I would make it an acquired skill, like it was in Black Ops, as opposed to how Modern Warfare took it.
Deathstreaks are going to have to go. Especially not anything that would give you, say, a chance to kill your would-be killer. That includes Martyrdom and Dead-Mans Hand. (Yes, I still say that Second Chance, in any incarnation, is utter bullshit.)
As for Killstreaks, they seem to be a fairly integral part of Call of Duty now, but yes, aerial Killstreaks, such as choppers or jets, need to be toned down so that they don't become something that will guarantee a match. Failing that, bolster anti-air measures, like lessening the time it takes for a lock-on, or make firing your primary able to do more damage to air support.
For guns, variety. Not just in the weapons themselves, but the attachments. Variety can make things a lot more interesting. Oh, and more importantly, balance. No one gun should excel over the others, even in its own class. All should hold their own, and all should have flaws and quirks.
And for Equipment, Tactical Insertion has to go. When its used properly, more often than not, it gives the opposing team an easy kill since its being camped. Otherwise, it promotes boosting.
And, last but certainly not least, fix the spawn system. Fixing that can easily avoid a good bit of player rage. Better yet, if possible make it so that players can neither spawn camp, or spawn-trap.
Quickscoping is more than likely going to stay, simply due to its popularity with fans, and the fact that it makes Sniper Rifles more viable as a weapon class in constraints of Call of Duty's map size. But, I would make it an acquired skill, like it was in Black Ops, as opposed to how Modern Warfare took it.
Deathstreaks are going to have to go. Especially not anything that would give you, say, a chance to kill your would-be killer. That includes Martyrdom and Dead-Mans Hand. (Yes, I still say that Second Chance, in any incarnation, is utter bullshit.)
As for Killstreaks, they seem to be a fairly integral part of Call of Duty now, but yes, aerial Killstreaks, such as choppers or jets, need to be toned down so that they don't become something that will guarantee a match. Failing that, bolster anti-air measures, like lessening the time it takes for a lock-on, or make firing your primary able to do more damage to air support.
For guns, variety. Not just in the weapons themselves, but the attachments. Variety can make things a lot more interesting. Oh, and more importantly, balance. No one gun should excel over the others, even in its own class. All should hold their own, and all should have flaws and quirks.
And for Equipment, Tactical Insertion has to go. When its used properly, more often than not, it gives the opposing team an easy kill since its being camped. Otherwise, it promotes boosting.
And, last but certainly not least, fix the spawn system. Fixing that can easily avoid a good bit of player rage. Better yet, if possible make it so that players can neither spawn camp, or spawn-trap.
Stop making it so damn often. Seriously it's quite annoying, I can't imagine how big of a letdown it is to make a super good original game only to know that Call of Duty 6.3 Hardcore Blacked Rust Edition is going to sell 6,0000,0000,0000,000 X 52,000.34 more copies than you. Who is buying all of these games, WHO?!?
Remove every call of duty game that came out after 4 from existence.
I don't know about console, but on PC I never got the feeling that certain weapons or perks were "OP".
I mean, this is a game where once you unlock your custom classes, most of the weapons you unlock at the start are still being used by people who are max level (except the pistol). Most servers I join theres still tonnes of people using the AK with literally no attachments, the MP5 is just as good as all the other SMG's you unlock (I think this one is down to preference I guess, I never felt the p90 was as good as everyone claimed) and half the snipers you see still use the Scout, which is the first sniper you unlock, and as far as I can remember you have access to juggernaught and stopping power from the get go.
Or you know just go back to WWII with no perks, whatever.
I don't know about console, but on PC I never got the feeling that certain weapons or perks were "OP".
I mean, this is a game where once you unlock your custom classes, most of the weapons you unlock at the start are still being used by people who are max level (except the pistol). Most servers I join theres still tonnes of people using the AK with literally no attachments, the MP5 is just as good as all the other SMG's you unlock (I think this one is down to preference I guess, I never felt the p90 was as good as everyone claimed) and half the snipers you see still use the Scout, which is the first sniper you unlock, and as far as I can remember you have access to juggernaught and stopping power from the get go.
Or you know just go back to WWII with no perks, whatever.
Stop mak.... oh, nevermind.Deathmageddon said:
Campaign: Stay focused on characters that are lower in the rankings, Bill Taylor and especially Vasili Ivanovich Koslov will always>Soap MacTavish. Keep the fights actually believable by having real battle situations not 3 dudes going guns-blazing ooh-rah style with random car explosions every 3 seconds.
Multiplayer:Go back to Pre-Vietnam Era (WWII), REMOVE KILLSTREAKS, remove perks (at least most like juggernaut/blast shields, stopping power, sleight-of-hand are top 3 to remove), add short-to-moderate respawn times, possibly-include weapon attachments but they would be for making your weapon unique aesthetically more than functionally, have less maps in favor of making them larger and less symmetrical aesthetically but balanced in terms of cover and map unique weapons. Actually do something to the damn engine instead of copying and pasting it for 4 years with slightly better (yet now degrading) graphics.
Instead of custom classes, make several default classes based on weapon-types like in CoD 2 and then allow iteration on it in terms of colors, decals, textures, and materials, and firefight functions with calibers and weight, and less on attachments that give arbitrary advantage like grenade launchers (which is why I prefer a WWII setting).
Yes I suppose I could go play Halo, but there's nothing like storming the beaches of Normandy with thousands of rounds being fired at you.
First 3 minutes were more immersing and engaging than anything in the Modern series.
Since CoD4 the games have degraded in almost every way due to feature creep brought on by Activision trying to justify you buying a new cod game every year. Take a breack, undo the feature creep, streamline/simplyfy/do away with the whole levelling to unlock important content idea and use that tried and tested base gameplay as a solid foundation from which to experiment.
CoD is monotonous and boring, the current iteration of call of duty gameplay has repeated 5 (6 coming soon) times and that's ignoring all the other companies who've tried to ape it. It has been the same for far too long and the talent of a hell of a lot of people has been wasted squeezing it out year on year with as little change as possible.
The devs should be let loose.
Do a proper futuristic setting and give everyone a ludicrous super weapon.
Try and make it work with proper sized maps - adding to this: ludicrous abstract maps a la quake or something.
Stick a somewhat meaningful metagame on the top with the sides vying for power amd proper knock on benefits for, say winning a lot as a particular side.
I really don't care what they'd do with it. Something needs to break the monotony.
CoD is monotonous and boring, the current iteration of call of duty gameplay has repeated 5 (6 coming soon) times and that's ignoring all the other companies who've tried to ape it. It has been the same for far too long and the talent of a hell of a lot of people has been wasted squeezing it out year on year with as little change as possible.
The devs should be let loose.
Do a proper futuristic setting and give everyone a ludicrous super weapon.
Try and make it work with proper sized maps - adding to this: ludicrous abstract maps a la quake or something.
Stick a somewhat meaningful metagame on the top with the sides vying for power amd proper knock on benefits for, say winning a lot as a particular side.
I really don't care what they'd do with it. Something needs to break the monotony.
I would probably just throw out all the elements of modernism and go straight into the future. From there I could just make shit up and have an excuse to play with futuristic weaponry. And the story could be less "Mr. "Insert ethnic stereotype here* has released the *insert WMD here* to destroy America! Stop him!" and more about...I don't know. Aliens.
I really don't know how to improve shooters. I don't play shooters much. The only shooters I've cared about since I played the first medal of honor when I was a little kid are Tribes Ascend and Planetside 2.
I really don't know how to improve shooters. I don't play shooters much. The only shooters I've cared about since I played the first medal of honor when I was a little kid are Tribes Ascend and Planetside 2.
