the main problem is that cod is already the same for 5 years, and i haven't seen anything that says otherwise on mw3.
Well, with the release of Halo 4, 5 and 6 and with the Bungie team abandoning the project it's clear that the rest of the Halo games will be obvious cash grabs just to play on the overwhelming fanboyism that the franchise has generated throughout the years.Atmos Duality said:I disagree.Kahunaburger said:Except Halo actually is fun and has good gameplay. And jetpacks.
I find the Halo franchise to be no less overhyped, mediocre and formulaic than the current Call of Duty franchise.
Then again, given how many gameplay elements Call of Duty copied from Halo, that isn't really all that surprising.
Sorry but no they have 13 hour campaigns. :}Mr. Mike said:weak 4 hour campaigns
MW3 will most likely be rehashed of what it was last year. They change things slightly every year slowly making the games better but in all still putting out shit that should only be relegated as an expansion.MacJack said:Seriously i can browse the internet without seeing so many people spam about it everyhwere even in non cod related videos/articles and if you say something negative about the game they are like "go play cod" like its some knida insult when in reallity its one of the most sucessfull franchises thus a very good geame. I guess its the same as halo back then when it was bashed.
But what pisses me off is how BIASED those haters are
They say that MW3 looks rehashed and same as last year.
Can't say anything for Uncharted 3 but as way of AC Revelations and the releases that they have been putting out. SOLID single player campaign and by solid I mean over the usual 8 hours of single player game time. Along with all the side missions.Well, in E3 i saw uncharted 3,assasin's creed revelations and spiderman edge of time. If no one told me i would say i was looking at their predessecors, yet only cod is bashed.
Once again cannot say anything for Killzone 3 but DS2 and FO:NV BOTH HAD SOLID single player stories.In retrospective, killzone 3 and dead space 2 and fallout new vegas were exactly like their predecessors but did the fans complain? Nope.
The so called WW clone wasn't a clone at all. It tried something new and was a huge departure from what it was when it was popular.Infact if you go take a look in game that tried to change, you will see they piss of the fans and failed like prince of persia in 2008, fans were pissed so they made a warrior within clone after that.
Wait did you just reference some of the EARLIEST games as being stale because they rehashed stuff? You know that rehashing and reskining is supposed to save money and time something at the time of Doom and Doom 2 was probably a god send considering how much coding and how big the teams actually were.Hell if you take a look a the past you will see many similat situations, eg doom 1 and 2 were practicly the same with one new weapon and a bunch of monsters, when they made doom 3, everyone was pissed it changed. Same thing with blood 2 or the tomb raider series, all tomb raider games till angel of darkness were the same, after that they change the game and took their chances and the fans hated id and went back to the last 5 "Recycled" tomb raider games.
Hell even stalker series are recycled, suprisingly people only bash cod about it like all those examples i pointed out do not exist.
Another thing will be is that they say there are too many cod games and it has gone stale over the year wih no changes whhile praising bf3 which comes from a franchise who is doing the same formula for farrr longer with very few additions. Eg: BF3 is basicly bf2 with better grpaphics and destruction(since they bringing back the airplanes)
And then there is this and I will say why I don't like the CoD games. The single player campaigns SUCK. Less than 8 hours for every single one of them. Playing through on harder difficulties for achievements is not replay value. BlOps story hinged on a single plat twist that once known about lost all replay value to the game. The Multiplayer is just pretty much new map packs that Activision sells for 15 dollars as is but is somehow able to get away with charging 60 for it.Imo this cod hate is getting out of hand and its way too biased.
That is their entire business plan. They are like the aliens from Independence, who go from planet to planet, using all the resources then moving on.Chibz said:Great, and now YOUR post contributes nothing to the conversation EITHER! I HAVE TO BREAK THIS CYCLE OF NON-CONTRIBUTION!Jegsimmons said:you mean...like the post you just made criticizing his?
Have to say, you're joining a large group of my friends. I know almost nobody who is buying the next CoD game. Or any CoD game ever again. Horray!pwnzerstick said:I don't hate COD, but I've stopped giving a shit about it.
Bobby Kotick, you're going to do to CoD what you did to Guitar Hero. Aren't you?
MW2 was probably the worse multiplayer CoD there's every been. It did not revolutionize anything. Everything was imbalanced, killstreaks were over the top terrible. You could use killstreaks, to get killstreaks? Kind of bs is that.MacJack said:Am sorry i dont see it. People said the same about uncharted 2, that is a huge improvment on the first, well it wanst, itw as pretty much the same and thats why i liked it. Being a big fan of dead space, i fail to see what the big improvement in the second, its the same game with new weapons and a jetpack instead of reversed gravity and the hacking puzzles. Assasin's creed brotherhood is EXACTLY like ac2 but with the brotherhood feature and you can buy more stuff...oh and cannons. The revelations trailer showed that its he same thing, same gameplay same graphics same cannons.AVATAR_RAGE said:Actually games like Dead Space, Killzone, etc made adjustments to the gameplay for the sequels. The COD games do very little in that department, repeating the same run, shoot, run, uncontrollable set piece, level end pattern.
Hell I used to be a COD fan but some things just get boring.
Take Assassins Creed for example, at it's core the gameplay is pretty much the same but as the series progresses improvements have been made. The core of the series is the same but its extremities keep expanding.
Now everything COD has could do has been done in a previous game and the multiplayer is running dry. Yet the fans of the series will still play it until the next game in the series dies out.
Suprisingly all those games have the same graphics.
I dont really see how cod is any less or how thse games are bigger improvements.
MW2 added killstreaks and revolutionized the way mp fps are nowdays, hell even crysis 2 copied that feature. Black ops made the game more balanced and killed quickscoping and added a new buying system. Those things really mean alot in mp considering i liked one of them and disliked the other one. So i wouldnt say its "the same game"I agree and apart from that i remember in the past halo was bashed just as bad as cod. i guess people hate what is very popular and sucessfull if they dont like it, simply because it doesnt reach the hype it gets by all those other people who like it.EonEire said:Just like Halo, I hate the Players not the Game. Both CoD and Halo are shining examples of how bad Online Multiplayer can be and it just sours any enjoyment you can have from a game when you have to put up with some of the most obnoxious people on the planet just to play a multiplayer match. "Mute them then" is usually the first port of call for a complaint like that to which the only response is, why don't those idiots grow up and act respectfully towards others instead of throwing around sexist / racist / homophobic comments for absolutely no reason.
Sometimes I wonder if Bungie ever regretted doing the Halo series (past Halo 1).Zarkov said:Well, with the release of Halo 4, 5 and 6 and with the Bungie team abandoning the project it's clear that the rest of the Halo games will be obvious cash grabs just to play on the overwhelming fanboyism that the franchise has generated throughout the years.
To say the least, it will be interesting to find out what happens.
Commentary (point by point):Magicman10893 said:My reasons in list form:
*snip*
So, in your opinion, successful=good?MacJack said:in reallity its one of the most sucessfull franchises thus a very good geame.
That's because it IS rehashed. It's still using the IW engine. The same engine used four years ago to make Call of Duty 4, with only minor improvements made. Alongside the colossus that is Battlefield 3 (and quite frankly, many other upcoming games) it looks terrible. Activision also have a record for charging an extra 20% for any CoD game they sell. Why should we pay more for more of the same thing?MacJack said:They say that MW3 looks rehashed and same as last year.
Those have all been appropriately criticised actually. But how do you criticise something that's more of the same thing without saying it's more of the same thing? It's not like the world is just mindlessly hating CoD, most criticisms of the franchise are appropriate. The difference is with games like Assassin's Creed, story elements are expanded upon, features are added and gameplay is improved. CoD adds nothing. Same engine, same gameplay, similar story (the only highlights of it being how much more ridiculous and unrealistic it gets) and no additional features. All you get is Campain, Multiplayer and Zombies/Spec Ops depending on whether Treyarch or Infinity Ward are grabbing your money.MacJack said:Well, in E3 i saw uncharted 3,assasin's creed revelations and spiderman edge of time. If no one told me i would say i was looking at their predessecors, yet only cod is bashed.
1) While the other major publishers are just as greedy, they have to compete, which means they have to make some sort of improvement in order to draw in an audience. Activision is so big they could slack off for a year after MW3 and still be able to stay afloat.Atmos Duality said:1) I'd say the other major publishers are just as greedy, but in less of a position to assert their desires since they have to compete.
2) Actually, there is a law in economics that relates the value of a product (from the consumer's perspective) to number of similar/same products that person owns. It's the law of diminishing returns. Normally, people eventually become bored with doing the same thing over and over, and this holds true for products. Knowing this, the game with the widest POTENTIAL audience will always make the most money in the short term, but when its market crashes, it will crash HARD.
If you need an example, look at the Guitar Hero/Rhythm action genre. It crashed and burned completely in the last two years.
3) Without some form of conditioning, this formula of repeat customers only works so many times. With a conditioning factor in your game, you can extend the number of times someone is willing to pay for the same thing.
World of Warcraft exploits this sort of in-game conditioning and has turned megaprofits for nearly 7 years as a result, despite how little the game has actually evolved.
4) Yup. You describe the result (Market stagnation) as related to "subjective standard setting", aka "personal expectations". Now it's assumed that certain features will be in every shooter, regardless of whether they fit there or not (regenerating health, linear levels) because the audience expects them based on their tastes.
When you set these non-objective required standards, you eliminate any new alternatives from the development process.
5) People are assholes when there's no consequence or enforcement of punishment. Having a larger group of assholes doesn't really change that except that the weakest form of community-control (reputation) disappears if there are more assholes to hide amongst.
6) Goes back to the point of 4). Market stagnation occurs if something is too popular. Prior to Call of Duty 4.x, the Halo franchise was responsible for stagnating the market and killing off innovation with its allure of instant-profits (just copy the Halo formula and you will make money).
Assasins Creed, Killzone (Probably), Spiderman (Probably) Is singleplayer. Most, if not all of them. A continue of the story from the older games.MacJack said:Seriously i can browse the internet without seeing so many people spam about it everyhwere even in non cod related videos/articles and if you say something negative about the game they are like "go play cod" like its some knida insult when in reallity its one of the most sucessfull franchises thus a very good geame. I guess its the same as halo back then when it was bashed.
But what pisses me off is how BIASED those haters are
They say that MW3 looks rehashed and same as last year.
Well, in E3 i saw uncharted 3,assasin's creed revelations and spiderman edge of time. If no one told me i would say i was looking at their predessecors, yet only cod is bashed.
In retrospective, killzone 3 and dead space 2 and fallout new vegas were exactly like their predecessors but did the fans complain? Nope.
Infact if you go take a look in game that tried to change, you will see they piss of the fans and failed like prince of persia in 2008, fans were pissed so they made a warrior within clone after that.
Hell if you take a look a the past you will see many similat situations, eg doom 1 and 2 were practicly the same with one new weapon and a bunch of monsters, when they made doom 3, everyone was pissed it changed. Same thing with blood 2 or the tomb raider series, all tomb raider games till angel of darkness were the same, after that they change the game and took their chances and the fans hated id and went back to the last 5 "Recycled" tomb raider games.
Hell even stalker series are recycled, suprisingly people only bash cod about it like all those examples i pointed out do not exist.
Another thing will be is that they say there are too many cod games and it has gone stale over the year wih no changes whhile praising bf3 which comes from a franchise who is doing the same formula for farrr longer with very few additions. Eg: BF3 is basicly bf2 with better grpaphics and destruction(since they bringing back the airplanes)
Imo this cod hate is getting out of hand and its way too biased.
Replystewox said:we're talking about modern warfare, the crappy lame ass mindless spray shootings for noobs and dicks, with noob tubes and IWnet, not balanced for lean and host migration please wait 20 seconds, this is WHAT "CALL OF DUTY" is being reffered to
MacJack said:Seriously i can browse the internet without seeing so many people spam about it everyhwere even in non cod related videos/articles and if you say something negative about the game they are like "go play cod" like its some knida insult when in reallity its one of the most sucessfull franchises thus a very good geame. I guess its the same as halo back then when it was bashed.
But what pisses me off is how BIASED those haters are
They say that MW3 looks rehashed and same as last year.
Well, in E3 i saw uncharted 3,assasin's creed revelations and spiderman edge of time. If no one told me i would say i was looking at their predessecors, yet only cod is bashed.
Another thing will be is that they say there are too many cod games and it has gone stale over the year wih no changes whhile praising bf3 which comes from a franchise who is doing the same formula for farrr longer with very few additions. Eg: BF3 is basicly bf2 with better grpaphics and destruction(since they bringing back the airplanes)
Imo this cod hate is getting out of hand and its way too biased.
Success doesn't mean the thing in question is any good. (Success doesn't mean it's bad) Success and popularity have absolutely no impact on quality. CoD fans try to use it's sales figures as some sort of a shield to defend it from legitimate criticisms about it's gameplay and narrative.when in reallity its one of the most sucessfull franchises thus a very good geame.
If you really knew what biased meant you wouldn't use it in this context.how BIASED those haters are
It is. Denial is the only reason to deny that. CoD hasn't looked felt or played any different since it got it's "Modern Warfare" facelift. and even so it still plays the exactly the same as the first 3. Actually it plays worse now because you weren't on fucking rails for the first 2 CoD games. (But that's just my opinion)They say that MW3 looks rehashed and same as last year.
The only way these people could have a biased opinion of CoD is if they have never played any of the games and it that's true about them why are you listening to them?way too biased
If you say "taht" again I'm going to destroy my monitor.MacJack said:*snip*