Call of Duty: Black Ops 2. Only a money ploy to beat Halo 4? - General

Black Ops 2 is clearly a ploy to get money (as are all Call of Duty entries at this point), but not to jab at Halo. Halo 4, like all the other Halos, is an Xbox exclusive, save for the two PC releases. Halo 4 lacks the marketability that Call of Duty has. It will undoubtedly kick the shit out of any other games released at the time, but, and I truly do hate to say this, I believe that Call of Duty will outsell it once more on the Xbox. Overall, Activision's profit margins will not feel a dent from Halo 4. The switch to future stylings is an attempt to make the game worthy of a purchase. The release window is just a coincidence- Halo has always been released from September-November.

I don't believe it has anything to do with Halo 4, the release and setting are just coincidence. They're placing it in the future so they can bring back some of the fans they lost after Black Ops. It's just an attempt to make it look like it's a different game.

Plot twist: Bo2 ends up as Halo canon

Games released in November typically are competing with [i]all[/i] of the holiday titles.

[QUOTE=cccritical;35851656]If you can't see the improvements to it you're blind. Just because the player models still look like humans in modern BDUs (hint: that's what they're supposed to look like) doesn't mean you've made no improvements to it. Are you saying that the gunplay is still the same? Maybe for assault rifles and sniper rifles, but look at pistols, SMGs and shotguns. Look at the variety of gun mechanics and gameplay-altering attachments. Akimbo, extended magazine, tactical knife? All of them change how the weapon is used. Pistols go from backup in extreme emergencies to mainstay weapons, SMGs become room-clearers, shotguns can be full-automatic buckshot machineguns. Look at the riot shield. Look at the semtex and throwing knife. You also need to consider killstreaks, perks, and weapon proficiencies. They haven't been in every installment and everything that has been in more than one game has changed heavily in the next. If you think there's no variety in the Call of Duty series, and that Call of Duty 2 and MW3 are practically the same game, you're lying to yourself.[/QUOTE] Actually the core weapon mechanics haven't changed one iota since Call of Duty 2, the only thing that has changed is the variety and prevalence of automatic weapons which is just a result of subsequent games focusing on different eras. Those attachments you listed as well also have very little effect on the overall gameplay, they're just little features tacked on to give some feeling of variety in terms of weapons. Additionally there hasn't been any change to movement mechanics since the introduction of sprint in the first Modern Warfare. However all of the issues with the Call of Duty series can be traced to the fact that the games only have a development time of 2 years thanks to Activision being Activison, the developers are left with virtually no time to significantly improve upon the previous release. And this has been going on since 2005.

Alike [I]Guitar Hero[/I], Activision are going to keep chugging out more games all of the time until it doesn't become profitable anymore.

I've ignored the Call of Duty games after CoD 2, but I have to admit that I find the sci-fi twist on Black Ops 2 to be refreshing. It might warrant a look if it becomes more than just another clone.

It's more the other way around. 343 wants to play Mister Bigshot and try to tread on CoD ground. It'll either hurt CoD sales or hurt Halo 4 sales, either way I'm getting both.

Aren't all games a money ploy to beat out competitors? That's kind of how the market works...

[QUOTE=Protocol7;36080903]Aren't all games a money ploy to beat out competitors? That's kind of how the market works...[/QUOTE] Nahh, there are a few decent ones that just want to make fun games. UndeadLabs with Class3/4 are looking good, Notch started out pretty nicely, mostly the little guys that are honestly just trying to let us have fun. Although Notch has become a little bit money grubbing, but whatever.

[QUOTE=Killer99531;36081045]Nahh, there are a few decent ones that just want to make fun games. UndeadLabs with Class3/4 are looking good, Notch started out pretty nicely, mostly the little guys that are honestly just trying to let us have fun. Although Notch has become a little bit money grubbing, but whatever.[/QUOTE] Errr... That's idealistic thinking. Most people who make games, even if for fun, are trying to make money in the end. If there was little-to-no monetary incentive then nobody would do it (except a few hobbyists). I'm sure some people want to make fun games as a high priority, but they'd probably rather eat.

Call of Duty 3 was the first game to add sprint, not Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.[QUOTE=MegaChalupa;35949971]Actually the core weapon mechanics haven't changed one iota since Call of Duty 2, the only thing that has changed is the variety and prevalence of automatic weapons which is just a result of subsequent games focusing on different eras. Those attachments you listed as well also have very little effect on the overall gameplay, they're just little features tacked on to give some feeling of variety in terms of weapons. Additionally there hasn't been any change to movement mechanics since the introduction of sprint in the first Modern Warfare. However all of the issues with the Call of Duty series can be traced to the fact that the games only have a development time of 2 years thanks to Activision being Activison, the developers are left with virtually no time to significantly improve upon the previous release. And this has been going on since 2005.[/QUOTE] The engine of a game doesn't matter, I was watching development of an indie game on the id Tech 2 (Quake2 engine) that look as good as any 2012 fps and too be honest I think if people would stop hopping on the band wagon of "Call of Duty is a rehash" and give Treyarch a chance that I think that would find some positive things about this game. Treyarch is the innovator in my opinion. I think for as much people that hated black ops they added alot of cool things even to the little things like the menus and the easter egg of breaking out of your chair and playing dead ops arcade and the text game on the computer. Yes you could argue that Call of Duty is basically the same game ever year but, then I would like to ask a question. Is everyone's beloved Counter-Strike a rehash each time there is a new installment in the series. I mean same maps, most of the same guns, and only little things changed. You can already pick it up and play it once you get it, call of duty is no different. To get to the point of it being a ploy, no. It doesn't matter firstly Halo 4 is an xbox exclusive. Secondly it doesn't matter what shit is on the disk as long as the box says Call of Duty it's going to sell a ton of copies.

As you've already read, there's a CoD title released annually, but it's also not just Treyarch. Halo 3 came out in September of 2007. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was released in November of 2007. CoD4, on the other hand, was made by Infinity Ward. The next year CoD5 came out and it was made by Treyarch, no Halo that year.

They have the right idea for most of the CoD games, but there are too many guns to be balanced at all. Look at Halo: Reach and how much they put into balancing it. They made sure that for competitive gameplay (And I quote) "We don't want to have one super weapon that can destroy all others on the field." CoD players have this tendency to just not give much thought on what they put in their loadout. They just kinda put the Highest Rank weapon in their slot then spray'n'pray when the get in game. As for snipers who can't do that sort of thing, they just try to 360 quickscope and think it's cool or something because they can move the control stick right/left and click a trigger and think they have skill when really anything in CoD is mostly just luck when it comes down to it. I don't really think any higher of Halo 4, though. I was in hopes of it being a good game; but honestly after I heard Marty O'Donnell wasn't composing, I lost all hope. It's probably gonna be a shitty game. (lol biased opinion because music will probably suck) and CoD:Black Ops 2? It's gonna be just the same as every other call of duty game. Made to make money, not to make a good game. That's what separated Bungie and IW/Treyarch in the past. Bungie cares about making a good game. The money is just making up for their hard work. The other two studios have no intention of making their game "good". They want money, and that's not a sin. They're a developer. That's what companies do. They make services to get revenue. I'm not criticizing that. Bungie just has better motives, and that's why in my opinion, they make better games and always will.

They've released a new installment in November every year for the past 5 years. So no. It's not a conspiracy.

[QUOTE=Axelaxelaxel;38137080]They've released a new installment in November every year for the past 5 years. So no. It's not a conspiracy.[/QUOTE] Really? Fucking thanks for the bump

How the fuck cant OP realize that ever since cod4 there has been a cod every single year at the same month and almost even the same date? This has nothing to do with halo or any other games. And why was this thread bumped?

[QUOTE=Adarrek;38137292]How the fuck cant OP realize that ever since cod4 there has been a cod every single year at the same month and almost even the same date? This has nothing to do with halo or any other games. And why was this thread bumped?[/QUOTE] Because SOMEONE <cough cough>Axelaxelaxel<cough cough> felt the need to to bump a thread with a post that says something that's already been said...multiple times. Anyways I personally don't like CoD ... definitely won't be buying it.

Shit man, this thread is 5 months old.