ForumsVideo Games

The Games that Killed Call of Duty

Posted Oct 23, '12 at 9:06pm



27 posts

I wouldn't say it is dying - it is just that Infinity Ward and/or Treyarch have not released something different from their formula that really invigorates casual players to play it, as spending 60$ for a game that differentiates slightly from its predecessors is not an inviting prospect. However, being a fan of some CoD games (Black Ops & COD4) I must say that it really has gone done in its quality for the Modern Warfare series. MW3's mic problems for the first few months were ridiculous, and unbalanced guns led e to sell it for money to pre-order BO2.

As for games better than the CoD series, Uncharted 1,2, & 3; Skyrim; Journey; and Flower. And Minecraft, obviously....

However, these are all of different series, and although I must congratulate Battlefield's producers for going against them, the two series are too different to compare in terms of gameplay and teamplay.


Posted Oct 26, '12 at 5:08pm



3,118 posts

The change of a new faction essentially expanded the a bunch of new characters and a new story line that extends past the previous games'

But by expansion is that through current principles / elements in the game or the introduction of new ones? I tend to value entirely new elements rather than an increase of one already present; the reduction of monotony and the difficulty of providing such features in strong fashion is much higher and more entertaining through keeping things different.

Well saying that the first game of the series was a fighter game (street fighter-esq) I'd say it has come a long way haha

Possibly, although it's difficult to identify sequels to. . . what are practically reimaginations sometimes. I could see how a Street-Fighter esque origination could develop into the (obviously) larger scale Dynasty Warriors it is now, but how many elements did they actually retain ? Did they even 'grow' from their first game or did they figure that it's a better idea to simply scrap and restart?

I appreciate sequels that stays true to its core whilst not being only that. Something that is primarily a new game with the complementary elements of its name / franchise, even; it could work in a backwards fashion of developing a new game and stringing it effectively to the series.

None of these games are the same genre except for Tribes, and it's free. League also is a free game.

Do they need to be free? I don't value much of the new FPSs now; and there's a fair bit to do with that in the thread about Medal of Honour: Warfighter. I think a game that was produced with the proper tenants that Call of Duty wasn't produced with could be identified as a better game. It is, of course, very difficult either way with a lot of games but as far as Call of Duty goes, especially as such a long series, I think it's pretty easy to do.

This is my justification for all the suggestions I made previously.

Uh, nothing killed call of duty. The game is still played by millions. So....your argument is invalid?

I do remember talking about this point before. . . it was stated that it wasn't "Not actually 'killed' Call of Duty, but beats it very well", correct?

- H
Reply to The Games that Killed Call of Duty

You must be logged in to post a reply!