[video=youtube;j_0tGZRy-3E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_0tGZRy-3E[/video]
Man if only COD got the Battlefront 2 treatment. Battlefront 2 selling worse is good, but COD doesn't deserve to still be selling. How long will Activision go on with selling the same game year after year.
[QUOTE=DiscoDriver32;52965322][video=youtube;j_0tGZRy-3E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_0tGZRy-3E[/video]
Man if only COD got the Battlefront 2 treatment. Battlefront 2 selling worse is good, but COD doesn't deserve to still be selling. How long will Activision go on with selling the same game year after year.[/QUOTE]
I mean I'm only part-way in but it sounds like the problem is that Activision didn't sell the same game?
The problem is that there is no way to make CoD good again.
It's a tired franchise with extremely high marks that apparently need to be repeated every single time.
Wasn’t Infinite Warfare supposed to be a step in the right direction? It might have been more of the same, but I heard it was kind of fun.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;52965364]Wasn’t Infinite Warfare supposed to be a step in the right direction? It might have been more of the same, but I heard it was kind of fun.[/QUOTE]
It was fun, but the majority of the community was sicked and tired of the jetpack run and gun gameplay and wanted to go back to boots on the ground.. so they did.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;52965364]Wasn’t Infinite Warfare supposed to be a step in the right direction? It might have been more of the same, but I heard it was kind of fun.[/QUOTE]
Call of Duty doesn't really need any large changes.
It works and it's fun for a lot of people, all activision really have to do is provide a well polished iteration every year or two. Although, they might find it more beneficial to release them less often.
WW2 is mediocre, but far from a bad game. There's some brilliant levels and moments scattered throughout that make it worth a rental at least. It [i]is[/i] disappointing when you compare it to the last two CoDs, however. It's important to remember that there are three different developers involved in the franchise now, and Sledgehammer has far less experience than IW or Treyarch.
Modern Warfare was the most enjoyable one I played, minus the lack of vibration. I skipped WAW because even all those years ago, WWII games had already been OVERDONE. MW2 had some welcomed improvements, but overall didn't quite edge past as being better. Black Ops had the most interesting story, but the multiplayer started to break my balls after grinding it for so long. It started to show the glitches and other bs that came with playing the game. It was enough for me to move on from COD.
I did play MW3 quite a few times with a friend, but at that point I was already turned off by the series. The same complaints we hear today were present all those years ago. It really blows my mind so little has changed.
I'm surprised they haven't gone full multilayer only yet
It'd be a another war fighting clone like battlefield but that's what they seem to be doing anyway.
CoD WW2 actually has more weapons than World at War, not including DLC guns added last week or flamethrowers which are a killstreak/perk respectively. There are also some surprising additions, like the 1941 Johnson automatic rifle and the Karabin Polish battle rifle. It's also pretty funny that he describes Gustav Cannon as the only good map when it is far and away the most reviled map in the game. Another weird statement was about how all the guns feel useful. If anything, this is the first CoD MP I've played in awhile where most of the guns don't feel at all competitive with the handful of really good ones. Sniping has never been easier in CoD while shotguns have never been this bad, as an example.
Other than that I largely agree with what he has to say about customization. Player numbers are falling off faster than they have for previous titles and I think a big part of that is how they have utterly destroyed the create a class system. There is just a real lack of variety now that you are locked into divisions and you only get a single perk. This also leads to yet more balance problems where some perks are universally good where as others are downright useless. Nothing better exemplifies CoD WW2's multiplayer in a nutshell than the Launched perk. Compared to previous games, rocket launchers are less useful both as anti-infantry weapons and, due to the lack of killstreaks, anti-killstreak work. So Sledgehammer took them from being a secondary anyone could equip in place of a pistol and forced you to take a perk slot to bring one. This means your class will always have this launcher that is generally useless in most games in place of a perk that helps in literally [I]every single engagement you have[/I]. It's just mindboggling how some of these decisions were made.
He touched on the technical issues and while the PC verison has it's fair share of bugs, the only really bad one I've encountered is one that stops you from spawning at the beginning of the match and keeping you in spectate, sometimes for up to 30 seconds into a match. What's far more ubiquitous is the atrocious levels of lag compensation that hamstring what is typically some of the tightest gunplay in the genre. You will regularly fire at someone, receive several hitmarkers, then die only to watch the killcam show you not shooting and the enemy taking no damage at all. Or walk around corners and fall down instantly only to see that on your enemies screen you had been around the corner for enough time to put you down, which is generally on the order of several hundred MS. I played against a yellow-bar (ping between 100 and 200) Garand user last night who kept one shotting me. Knowing that the Garand isn't a one shot rifle, I watched the killcam. Indeed he was firing two shots but on my end I was dying as soon as I saw the first one fired. This isn't a rarity or something that happens when you get bad servers or matchmade with people across the world. This happens in every single match you play and it's awful.
I don't play zombies and I thought the campaign was good but the multiplayer is one step forward, several steps backwards. If it weren't for the event going on I would have stopped playing already, and I probably will in January.
[QUOTE=DiscoDriver32;52965322] How long will Activision go on with selling the same game year after year.[/QUOTE]
Did you even watch the video you posted? The crux of the argument is that WW2 has changed too much from previous games, for the worse.
Frankly as someone who didn't like Advanced Warfare, loved Black Ops 3, and skipped Infinite Warfare, I'm no longer discerning between old and new CoD games but just looking at what Treyarch makes, because it seems like they are the only ones capable of keeping the multiplayer fresh and adequately well designed.
[editline]11th December 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;52965364]Wasn’t Infinite Warfare supposed to be a step in the right direction? It might have been more of the same, but I heard it was kind of fun.[/QUOTE]
It was a reskinned, less technically competent, less balanced version of Black Ops 3 released at a time when the majority of the CoD playerbase was tired of the futuristic setting. It was "kind of fun" in the same way IW's last entry, Ghosts, was kind of fun.
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;52965358]The problem is that there is no way to make CoD good again.
It's a tired franchise with extremely high marks that apparently need to be repeated every single time.[/QUOTE]
Advanced Warfare was great and I think the exo mechanics added a lot to the FPS template that's been copypasted (and not just in CoD) endlessly since 2008, too bad half the people that played it hated it for being so different and the other half hated it because Ghosts left a bad taste in their mouths
:snip:
I was an idiot that forgot which game was which because "[something] Warfare" tripped me up between Infinite and Advanced
[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;52965863]Advanced Warfare was great and I think the exo mechanics added a lot to the FPS template that's been copypasted (and not just in CoD) endlessly since 2008, too bad half the people that played it hated it for being so different and the other half hated it because Ghosts left a bad taste in their mouths[/QUOTE]
Eh, Black Ops 3 did as much as Advanced Warfare did to make things different and is widely regarded as one of the better recent releases. Personally I really didn't like the variants system, and for some reason just got bored really quickly.
Exo-suits got me back into CoD.
Their removal got me back out.
[QUOTE=BlackRainbow;52965880]Exo-suits got me back into CoD.
Their removal got me back out.[/QUOTE]
For how fast-paced Call of Duty is, what with sprinting around like chickens with their heads cut off, adding quick dodges and extra jump mechanics really complimented the systems. The fact that the games after it kept the core mechanics but tried to nerf or alter them for a very different focus always felt off to me, and following Battlefield 1's trends by abandoning the whole system to go into a really weirdly streamlined WWII had everyone rightfully on edge.
It's like going from Mega Man 6 to Mega Man 9; suddenly major features and gameplay changers are completely eschewed for the sake of being like older games (ie: Mega Man 2). Except Mega Man 9 was a good game in spite of this and had the perfect retro throwback market craze timing for it as a pretty cheap title. CoD: WWII isn't necessarily "bad", but compared to, again, Battlefield 1 which kept the gameplay of its predecessors intact and just tried to take a fresh spin on them, CoD just stripped things down and left a lot of advancements and good ideas for the sake of arbitrary simplicity as a $60 high budget AAA game filled with lootboxes.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.