• New CoD confirmed, Activision claims it will be "Full Of Innovation"
    376 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ghostwork;34640876]i don't think i could ever call bad company 2's color pallet limited to brown and gray[/QUOTE] It had color but used the same obnoxious filters BF3 does to make everything artificially greyer.
[QUOTE=Sharker;34640362]Blame the fans.[/QUOTE] Blame the fans for liking the game? [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bredirish123;34640490]Is anyone here shocked? I actually laughed so damn hard, MW3 has been our for a little less than 4 months and they are already planning a new ~Action Packed Cinematic Experience~[/QUOTE] - with a new developer and different concept. You forgot that tiny little detail.
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;34640490]Is anyone here shocked? I actually laughed so damn hard, MW3 has been our for a little less than 4 months and they are already planning a new ~Action Packed Cinematic Experience~[/QUOTE] Shocked? Considering they've announced a new one relatively close to the same time every year, no.
I liked Black Ops, to me it felt like a step in the right direction. New setting, new characters, better storyline*, balanced multiplayer and great maps. There was so much customization in Black Ops that was really overlooked. I prefer it over the Modern Warfare series by a mile. *Albeit forgettable campaign
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;34641018]I liked Black Ops, to me it felt like a step in the right direction. New setting, new characters, better storyline*, balanced multiplayer and great maps. There was so much customization in Black Ops that was really overlooked. I prefer it over the Modern Warfare series by a mile. *Albeit forgettable campaign[/QUOTE] I feel you on that one. One thing I didn't like too much was the currency system. It wasn't all that bad, but when I unlock a gun, I want to use it at that time. I don't want to have to worry about not having enough CoD points to unlock it. I was rarely in situations like that though.
I think I'll stick to blops unless they actually do something impressive with this one.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34640967]Blame the fans for liking the game? [editline]10th February 2012[/editline] - with a new developer and different concept. You forgot that tiny little detail.[/QUOTE] Blame the fans for funding a series that has long since overstayed its welcome to a lot of people. Also having a new developer =/= being developed by the other half of the title tennis. Infinity Ward and Treyarch have been playing with the series for years now. Any time the other makes 'innovations' the other scrabbles desperately to match or mimic them (see: Spec Ops vs. Zombies) so I have utterly no doubt that these perception-shifting advancements they intend to make will get utterly dragged out over another 5 games to being as utterly uninteresting as the title itself is probably going to be.
[QUOTE=Someoneuduno;34641421]Blame the fans for funding a series that has long since overstayed its welcome to a lot of people.[/QUOTE] You're talking about it as if it were some foreign invader. It's a game. People freak out way too much about this.
[QUOTE=Someoneuduno;34641421]Blame the fans for funding a series that has long since overstayed its welcome to a lot of people.[/quote] What people? And overstayed its welcome? Welcome to where? It's a fucking video game series. Battlefield has 20 fucking games, where is this "overstayed your welcome" shit? [quote]Also having a new developer =/= being developed by the other half of the title tennis. Infinity Ward and Treyarch have been playing with the series for years now. Any time the other makes 'innovations' the other scrabbles desperately to match or mimic them (see: Spec Ops vs. Zombies)[/quote] Improving off each other is a bad thing? [quote]so I have utterly no doubt that these perception-shifting advancements they intend to make will get utterly dragged out over another 5 games to being as utterly uninteresting as the title itself is probably going to be.[/QUOTE] There is literally no evidence it will, besides your paranoid and neurotic hatred for things that don't exist in the game series.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34638430]pfft it's probably going to just be the same as the last one but with new maps and jets and you'll have to launch it from a website[/QUOTE] At least they added strafing while sprinting.
Treyach aren't the bad guys here, they're actually fair and responsible but would be on a tight point with Activision and their standards. I only dream one day Treyach will be come independent and start making more games like BO and WaW on the IW 3.0 engine.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34641563]Improving off each other is a bad thing? [/QUOTE] I like CoD and all, but minor improvements just aren't worth the $60 price tag.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;34635041]I remember the old days when the Call of Duty series was produced with effort, didn't have fucking 13-year-olds running all over the place, and was genuinely entertaining and enjoyable to play. [img]http://images.wikia.com/callofduty/images/3/37/Call_of_Duty_Cover.jpg[/img] [img]http://images.wikia.com/callofduty/images/7/79/Coduobox.jpg[/img] [img]http://images.wikia.com/callofduty/images/a/a6/Call_of_Duty_2.jpg[/img] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH0qw5VqOGw[/media] Awwww yeaahh...[/QUOTE] These three plus this one. [img]http://i.cubeupload.com/uDxCQe.jpg[/img] As a CoD fanboy, I would love it if Activision made 'em like they used to.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;34641822]Treyach aren't the bad guys here, they're actually fair and responsible but would be on a tight point with Activision and their standards. I only dream one day Treyach will be come independent and start making more games like BO and WaW on the IW 3.0 engine.[/QUOTE] Independent Treyarch developing a shooter on an established engine would be amazing.
[QUOTE=JustGman;34641830]I like CoD and all, but minor improvements just aren't worth the $60 price tag.[/QUOTE] What do you suggest they do?
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34642246]What do you suggest they do?[/QUOTE] You know, make some improvements. Maybe change up the multiplayer, put more focus on an actual single player experience
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;34642331]You know, make some improvements. Maybe change up the multiplayer, put more focus on an actual single player experience[/QUOTE] Liiiiiiiiiiike? How about some examples? Don't answer "how can they improve it" with "Improvements"
Innovation = CoD MW3 with a new skin and texture pack. Along with the some of the same maps so it's "classic" and the programmers don't have to work as hard.
[QUOTE=Phaselancer;34642494]Innovation = CoD MW3 with a new skin and texture pack. Along with the some of the same maps so it's "classic" and the programmers don't have to work as hard.[/QUOTE] Are you going to read the thread or keep acting like an idiot?
[QUOTE=Phaselancer;34642494]Innovation = CoD MW3 with a new skin and texture pack. Along with the some of the same maps so it's "classic" and the programmers don't have to work as hard.[/QUOTE] This has nothing to do with MW3.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34642246]What do you suggest they do?[/QUOTE] Here we go: Single Player: -A more story-driven campaign, with a longer, more compelling plot. -likeable characters to get you more attatched to finishing the game. -Bigger battle scenes, such as entire armies going head-to-head. -Plot twists that everyone won't see coming. -The ability to customize your weapon between missions. -Vehicle combat. Multiplayer: -Nerf the air support. -Death matches of 20v20 -much larger maps -more control over the environment. I mean, like being able to barricade doors, drive cars to block checkpoints, take down walls to get to enemy positions. -more of an emphasis on strategy. -realistic gun handling -complete overhaul of the spawning system. That's all for now, give me some time and I might be able to come up with a few more.
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;34642778]Here we go: Single Player: -A more story-driven campaign, with a longer, more compelling plot. -likeable characters to get you more attatched to finishing the game. -Bigger battle scenes, such as entire armies going head-to-head. -Plot twists that everyone won't see coming. -The ability to customize your weapon between missions. -Vehicle combat. Multiplayer: -Nerf the air support. -Death matches of 20v20 -much larger maps -more control over the environment. I mean, like being able to barricade doors, drive cars to block checkpoints, take down walls to get to enemy positions. -more of an emphasis on strategy. -realistic gun handling -complete overhaul of the spawning system. That's all for now, give me some time and I might be able to come up with a few more.[/QUOTE] The multiplayer part is arguable but I definitely agree with most of the singleplayer suggestions
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;34642778]-A more story-driven campaign, with a longer, more compelling plot.[/quote] 9 hours is an alright time for a linear narrative FPS. Even then, the campaign is a pretty heavy part of the game [quote]-likeable characters to get you more attatched to finishing the game.[/quote] Call of Duty does this already, and quite wonderfully. Have you seen the reactions to characters from the community? I have, people have grown attached to the characters. [quote]-Bigger battle scenes, such as entire armies going head-to-head.[/quote] It wouldn't fit at all for the style of game it has. [quote]-Plot twists that everyone won't see coming.[/quote] Again, this isn't an issue. There are a few things that are predictable, but CoD has managed to pull off some twists that were really well done. [quote]-The ability to customize your weapon between missions.[/quote] More of a neat feature than a ground shaking concept. Even then, at times, with the narrative style, it wouldn't work. And even then, I don't really mind not being able to do so as I can only think of a few games that allow you to do it. [quote]-Vehicle combat.[/quote] Already been done. [quote]-Nerf the air support.[/quote] It already is, just hit it with explosives. Or you can track where it's going to fire as the guns fire from direction its facing. Or even simpler, take cover. [quote]-Death matches of 20v20[/quote] Most games already don't have this, even then, CoD is too fast paced and smaller in scale to be 40 players. [quote]-much larger maps[/quote] For games that, at the least have 8 people in it, this is not a good suggestion. [quote]-more control over the environment. I mean, like being able to barricade doors, drive cars to block checkpoints, take down walls to get to enemy positions.[/quote] Um, what? Have you even played CoD, how the fuck does that work? It's a FPS round based shooting match. Most of the shit you're suggesting is just little random things, you can't POSSIBLY fault the game for not having that. [quote]-more of an emphasis on strategy.[/quote] That's up to the players, but in the objective games, there is. [quote]-realistic gun handling[/quote] They already do this for the most part. [quote]-complete overhaul of the spawning system.[/quote] I don't see an issue with it. Most of these are just random things YOU would like to see in it, or things that aren't even an issue to begin with.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34642957]9 hours is an alright time for a linear narrative FPS. Even then, the campaign is a pretty heavy part of the game Call of Duty does this already, and quite wonderfully. Have you seen the reactions to characters from the community? I have, people have grown attached to the characters. It wouldn't fit at all for the style of game it has. Again, this isn't an issue. There are a few things that are predictable, but CoD has managed to pull off some twists that were really well done. More of a neat feature than a ground shaking concept. Even then, at times, with the narrative style, it wouldn't work. And even then, I don't really mind not being able to do so as I can only think of a few games that allow you to do it. Already been done. It already is, just hit it with explosives. Or you can track where it's going to fire as the guns fire from direction its facing. Or even simpler, take cover. Most games already don't have this, even then, CoD is too fast paced and smaller in scale to be 40 players. For games that, at the least have 8 people in it, this is not a good suggestion. Um, what? Have you even played CoD, how the fuck does that work? It's a FPS round based shooting match. Most of the shit you're suggesting is just little random things, you can't POSSIBLY fault the game for not having that. That's up to the players, but in the objective games, there is. They already do this for the most part. I don't see an issue with it. Most of these are just random things YOU would like to see in it, or things that aren't even an issue to begin with.[/QUOTE] I beat the MW3 campaign on hard in five hours, and I am notoriously bad at video games. By MW3 there stopped being character development. There are ways to do entire battle scenes. They pulled it off in Big Red One, they can do it now. It would fit easily. Why not customize weapons? You pick up an AK as price and escape on a heli with Nikolai. You customize it at Nikolai's base before the next mission. There's loads of possibilities. The last time I got to drive a tank in CoD it was in Big Red One. (haven't played five though) And 'good plot twists' like Shepard being evil, were retarded. Why would he betray his own men? The multiplayer stuff I can see your view on, but my problem was that apart from moving, aiming, shooting, and calling in killstreaks there is no freedom in the multiplayer. It gets boring and artificial long before you prestige. Why settle for acceptable when you can be the best? Rebuke over.
This again? Not a surprise. Nope.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34642957]9 hours is an alright time for a linear narrative FPS. Even then, the campaign is a pretty heavy part of the game Call of Duty does this already, and quite wonderfully. Have you seen the reactions to characters from the community? I have, people have grown attached to the characters. It wouldn't fit at all for the style of game it has. Again, this isn't an issue. There are a few things that are predictable, but CoD has managed to pull off some twists that were really well done. More of a neat feature than a ground shaking concept. Even then, at times, with the narrative style, it wouldn't work. And even then, I don't really mind not being able to do so as I can only think of a few games that allow you to do it. Already been done. It already is, just hit it with explosives. Or you can track where it's going to fire as the guns fire from direction its facing. Or even simpler, take cover. Most games already don't have this, even then, CoD is too fast paced and smaller in scale to be 40 players. For games that, at the least have 8 people in it, this is not a good suggestion. Um, what? Have you even played CoD, how the fuck does that work? It's a FPS round based shooting match. Most of the shit you're suggesting is just little random things, you can't POSSIBLY fault the game for not having that. That's up to the players, but in the objective games, there is. They already do this for the most part. I don't see an issue with it. Most of these are just random things YOU would like to see in it, or things that aren't even an issue to begin with.[/QUOTE] I'm just curious, why do you defend CoD as if it's the greatest thing ever? I'll admit that I have no love for the series but it just seems like you're defending it just to defend it
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34642378]Liiiiiiiiiiike? How about some examples? Don't answer "how can they improve it" with "Improvements"[/QUOTE] They make millions with this shit and he's the one who's supposed to come up with "improvements" ? I mean yeah it's not like they have a huge budget, and entire creative team or anything, they don't do that because they don't fucking want to, they could slap a 4 on MW3 and it would break sales records and make millions anyways. Why change when you can choose not to change and save time and money ? Anyways, blame the fanbase for buying the same shit, Activision is simply grabbing the money.
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;34643153]I beat the MW3 campaign on hard in five hours, and I am notoriously bad at video games.[/quote] I took my time with it, didn't rush through the gameplay. I got 8 and a half hours in it. [quote]By MW3 there stopped being character development.[/quote] Because the characters had 2 games to develop. Assassin's creed had little character development for Ezio because he had 2 games already to develop. My point is, if they're already deeply entwined into the story, why should it be bad? Also, there was character development with Wallcroft, Yuri, antagonist CD with Makarov, and the Delta Force team. [quote]There are ways to do entire battle scenes. They pulled it off in Big Red One, they can do it now. It would fit easily.[/quote] MW3 had these. the entire first mission in Germany was the US army invading Russian occupied Germany. It was a [I]massive[/I] battle. [quote]Why not customize weapons? You pick up an AK as price and escape on a heli with Nikolai. You customize it at Nikolai's base before the next mission. There's loads of possibilities.[/quote] Yeah, but you don't go back to Nikolai's base. There are certain missions where you start out in the middle of things. [quote]The last time I got to drive a tank in CoD it was in Big Red One. (haven't played five though)[/quote] Well it's in WaW's single and multiplayer. [quote]And 'good plot twists' like Shepard being evil, were retarded. Why would he betray his own men?[/quote] Uh, did you NOT play the game? It's explained. Like 3 times. [quote]The multiplayer stuff I can see your view on, but my problem was that apart from moving, aiming, shooting, and calling in killstreaks there is no freedom in the multiplayer. It gets boring and artificial long before you prestige. Why settle for acceptable when you can be the best? [/quote] Okay, fair enough on your last point. HOWEVER, can you really fit CoD's style and engine into a grand scale shooter? No, it's too focused on squad combat. [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;34643452]They make millions with this shit and he's the one who's supposed to come up with "improvements" ?[/quote] uh no, that wasn't my point at all. How the hell did you manage to mistake that? He was saying how they don't make improvements. I was asking him what improvements are there to be made that aren't already being made. [quote]I mean yeah it's not like they have a huge budget, and entire creative team or anything, they don't do that because they don't fucking want to, they could slap a 4 on MW3 and it would break sales records and make millions anyways. Why change when you can choose not to change and save time and money ? Anyways, blame the fanbase for buying the same shit, Activision is simply grabbing the money.[/QUOTE] Again, SHOW ME what parts are so horrendous that the game series shouldn't exist.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34643593]I took my time with it, didn't rush through the gameplay. I got 8 and a half hours in it. Because the characters had 2 games to develop. Assassin's creed had little character development for Ezio because he had 2 games already to develop. My point is, if they're already deeply entwined into the story, why should it be bad? Also, there was character development with Wallcroft, Yuri, antagonist CD with Makarov, and the Delta Force team. MW3 had these. the entire first mission in Germany was the US army invading Russian occupied Germany. It was a [I]massive[/I] battle. Yeah, but you don't go back to Nikolai's base. There are certain missions where you start out in the middle of things. Well it's in WaW's single and multiplayer. Uh, did you NOT play the game? It's explained. Like 3 times. Okay, fair enough on your last point. HOWEVER, can you really fit CoD's style and engine into a grand scale shooter? No, it's [B]too focused on squad combat.[/B] [editline]11th February 2012[/editline] uh no, that wasn't my point at all. How the hell did you manage to mistake that? He was saying how they don't make improvements. I was asking him what improvements are there to be made that aren't already being made. Again, SHOW ME what parts are so horrendous that the game series shouldn't exist.[/QUOTE] Here's an idea, how about there are Squad-based game modes with specific objectives and the like and there are larger scale game modes on larger maps that deal with broader objectives.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;34643413]I'm just curious, why do you defend CoD as if it's the greatest thing ever?[/quote] There is a MASSIVE difference between defending it as "if it's the greatest thing ever", which I'm not in anyway, and defending the sheer amount of bullshit claims thrown at it. CoD has criticism like this: The big innovation: Laser pointer attachment along with the option of slapping as many attachments as you want on your guns, including but not limited to 6 laser pointers, 5 ACOG scopes, 25 magazines sticky-taped together, over 500 stickers of skulls and naked women and a silencer as long as the gun itself all at one time! You can also quadruple-wield all guns in the game, make summersaults when you press the jump key twice and if you pre-purchase you get the ultimate 3-kill killstreak "#1 on the leaderboard and unlock everything"! And pre-purchasing is only $599.99 every week! I just hope they'll go back to CoD4 times where the killstreaks were fixed and there wasn't a magic whiz gun that destroyed everything. You want to tell me this is both accurate and warranted? No, it's not, it's just stupid and silly. [quote]I'll admit that I have no love for the series but it just seems like you're defending it just to defend it[/QUOTE] Then you have not read my posts at all. I'm defending it because it's geniuenly a good game series that receives a shitstorm of hate just because it's popular. Frankly, the majority of these posts are hating it just to hate it. As I have shown more reasons why the hate is unwarranted then ANYONE in this thread has shown the opposite.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.