Forums → Games → [Main Thread] CoD? Put it here!
| 3990 | 805670 |
Apparently the effort of cleaning up the forums has been biased, so the CoD group get their own thread for discussing as well.
Enjoy.
- 3,990 Replies
the cods point killed cod for me , i liked the fact that you had to work for the atachments and you had to work for the gun camos ,that one of the reasons black ops is boring.
the cods point killed cod for me , i liked the fact that you had to work for the atachments and you had to work for the gun camos ,that one of the reasons black ops is boring.
I agree. I liked how in the Modern Warfare series you had to work for your camos by getting headshots instead of buying any camo you want for the same price. Hopefully they will keep the same headshot system in MW3.
black ops is beasssttt but so is mw2. all cod rules. idc why you got to compare them. and personality i could CARE LESS about the freaken camo on my gun. haha!
All I hope from modern warfare 3 is
1 it don't get bought.
2 they dont get awards
3 it is the last CoD
That's not legit, it takes no skill... any idiot can do that, maybe even you could.
Sorry, that was out of hand...
O.o That was strange.
So it's legit to win a game of SnD because you can shoot straight up in the air and rain grenades down on the opposing spawn?
It's legit because you're capable of doing it without going against the Terms of Use, EULA etc.
Unless of course there's a server rule against that (which there is a lot of stuff like that in CoD4 servers on PC), then you're fully allowed to do so.
Oh really? There's a counter to having every piece of cover destroyed? There's a counter to the incredibly slow and boring gameplay? There's a counter to it's horrible game design? Nope, not at all...
This is where I can buckle down and get some things straight (from my perspective).
Firstly, not every piece of cover can be destroyed, you still have terrain being a HUGE factor (something not always present in CoD maps), and you also have the destroyed buildings posing a large amount of dynamic cover (given as it can be used to face any side and still provide cover).
Slow and boring? Your opinion / playstyle I guess. If you want to snipe, it will be slow - but even so it won't be boring since you SHOULD be more focused calculating the shot to the persons head from VERY far away.
Other than that, you can act more or less a Recon with the M1A1 Thompson you unlock, planting C4 at fortified positions, objectives or enemy vehicles. You're gonna be in a rough position most of the time unless you do it stealthy - in either case, it is NOT slow and NOT boring.
Then, if you go any other class... well. How about gunning down people with an M60 as a Medic? Or dodging bullets, explosions and inevitable death in the effort to save a comrade (or just to get your +50 points from him)?
As an Assault you should be the first line brutha on the field. Popping cover in the blink of an eye with a very well balanced Grenade Launcher, resupplying ammo to your suppressive medics and giving heavy firepower to your Engineers.
Those three classes (the three NOT the Recon) can also use a lot of information from spotting gained from Snipers, you can properly coordinate attacks through simply knowing where they are.
As an Assault you could also equip a smoke launcher, providing cover by blocking line of sight for enemy tanks or hitting your own side of the field to blur cover and happenings going on around your side. If you don't want anything like that you could equip an underbarrel shotgun or even a normal shotgun, carrying C4 and doing the same mission as a Recon.
Only that you can resupply ammo, instead of using awesome Motion Mines.
As an Engineer you hold the same job as a Medic - to improve longevity, for the most part though you're more important to the field because you keep the HEAVY firepower going for longer, not the fodder.
Your SMG's with suppressors allow for some pretty intriguing play if you still feel fond of that infiltration position. If you don't, you have a fair hand in close-quarter play and you're the one who needs to be aware of what's going on when you're repairing a tank with missiles being shot at it.
If not then you will want to be picking off key point of cover (including vehicles) with your rocket launcher. If you don't want to have such an active role you can go out, even as an infiltrator and plant Mines which can severely disrupt enemy cavalry movements and severely hinder their ability to coordinate given as half your team won't be avoiding that **** tank that blows up everything - because you blew it up beforehand.
There are SEVERAL layers of play in Battlefield - all of those did not take into consideration a large amount of teamwork, and with that it will be much better. Bad game design? Are you on crack? It's such a balanced game with interesting mechanics and such... How the hell can you not say the same for CoD?
Yes, there is a counter, if you want one, you go find it. If there's that darn sniper taking potshots at your frontline then you take a position on the side and pick him off yourself - or you could just shoot a rocket to destroy his cover, spot him, and let your own snipers do the rest.
Teamwork, brutha.
Does it make for fun gaming? No, not really... at least in the eyes of the general populous.
Not only are there several factors as to why CoD may be picked over BF (the general popularity it has now - "If more people play it it must be better", friends playing it, or that it's easier, etc), but I could simply say the valid point that I don't give two dumps over the general populous' opinion, mostly due to the fact that I know how idiotic they can be.
You don't get how big business works, do you?
Lol wut?
MW2 released and people complained, they released a patch which led to new exploits. Once again people complained. So a year and a half passes and a few high ups in IW get fired... almost immediately after
a patch is released for MW2 fixing some hacks and glitches, improving the game to a state of almost being tolerable. Coincidence? I think not.
Or did you not think about the "No Russian" mission which the lead developers did NOT tell Activision, getting into a huge ****-storm between the press, the game, the PUBLISHERS and the developers? The reason they got fired is through insubordination, not because they made the game "better".
I can safely say that Chillz knows how big business works.
From what I saw in that post, Gstroy, you literally just posted what you saw, what happened with the game itself, not the stuff in between.
I got treyarched so many times...Getting infinity warded aswell. Black ops is a rage inducing game, that's for sure.
It will induce rage if you let it.
I used to rage, but (and I'm not joking) that was when I was like... 9? I was playing Call of Duty 4 and it was a piss off, granted, but the moment I decided to blame myself for any deaths I went from 1:7 to 18:3.
And I haven't raged on a game since. If I feel that a game is getting on my nerves, I quit. Being as I know how bad CoD can be I haven't installed it on this computer and I don't plan to - preventive measures is all I need thus far.
1 it don't get bought.
2 they dont get awards
3 it is the last CoD
Here is the simplest business standpoint - CoD makes money, keep making it.
It's gonna get bought because that's how blindness works, the blatant facts of CoD to the common person is that it's adrenline-rushing fun. When they look deeper into it they can see how silly it is compared to a game that requires a higher-skill calibre. You cannot implement complex functions in CoD for 2 reasons:
1) The outdated engine.
2) The bad community.
Can I say the skill of Bad Company players is good? Not really, they don't use motion mines, they don't think as a team, and they say "bg" at the end of a game if they lose. Bad mannered idiots, but nonetheless the game has complexity that CoD does not, if you implemented more for CoD that was beyond "Point and click, press F and place Claymore" then you would have a lot of problems between players who can use the capabilities well and those who can't tell the difference between C4 and a Frag Grenade (an exaggeration, of course).
Just throwing it out there.
- H
Does anyone but me notice magic curving bullets and commando lunges in Black Ops?
Also, they need to take out Second Chance, or Last Stand or whatever they wanna call it.
Nice vid.
But everyone has to admit CoD will never get as good as it did in the past.
Can't wait till MW3 come's out it's gonna be soo sick if anyone has a PS3 add me up for Black Ops Intensity420 is my online name
I simply cannot wait until MW# is realeased!
It looks so amazing with the NEW and IMPROVED Spec Ops.
They are making it like a zombie mode with two options;
Survival Mode (zombie-based mode)
Mission Mode (original spec ops from mw2)
I always found it funny that people let games bug them, it's like a game is a part of their lives and they need to have it their way in them
In 2 cases I find it acceptable:
1) Letting out anger, geneally it's better that you're angry with a game and not something else, the reason this sounds dumb is because generally people GAIN anger instead of let it out when playing games.
Sadly.
2) When you done something stupid and there's something big on the lines for playing. Professional players, for instance.
Yea, instead of shouting at the TV screen
<-- PC Player
you could calm down, relax, and play the game as it's meant to be played, for fun. This actually helps improve your score, believe it or not, because you feel relaxed and calm you can react and play better; or so I've heard.
Definitely, however when it comes to CoD, once you pinpoint the general gameplay which is VERY easy to do if you're not raging, and then you start getting annoyed, it doesn't take much maintaining the same kinds of scores.
One of the reasons I'd prefer more skillful and complex games.
This however is hilarious.
One word: Indeed.
You seem to be hatin' on Treyarch.
I know I be hatin' on CoD, but they're getting money off this - I'd rather argue that they do not deserve what they receive rather than argue that they're fools, because if you're gonna get A LOT of money for releasing even a bad game... it's difficult for you to care.
I would, I'd rather a good game rather than more money than usual, but even so, other people don't look at things like me.
- H
*raises hand* I'm here for ya Buddy.
Oh yea, one last thing. This.
I fear for Modern Warfare 3.
Not the sales! No! When i learned that MW2 AND Black Ops broke entertainment-sales records, i smiled. A step forward had been made for gaming as a legitimate form of entertainment.
I don't see this as a threat to my favorite titles, Halo, Gears, or Battlefield, as a multiplayer king. In the game industry, quality has always beat out quantity, (Sonic being the only deformed variable in this equation) but, a fall to an overall, pretty **** good franchise.
Modern Warfare 1 released in 2007 next to Bioshock, Halo 3, and Mass Effect, as superb gaming experiences, the absolute best of the time.
Three years later...
Three CoD's later...
Three gritty, corridor-shooters later...
Black Ops
A best seller and a zombie wonderland... but... it's too... familiar. While being forced to play it by my friends, i felt like i was playing it again... like it was a new experience, already experienced. I glanced at my game library, and there they were. Modern Warfare, World At War, and Modern Warfare 2, all nicely organized. There was no progression, i realized... there was only CoD. And that is what I fear. The most popular franchise on the planet... causing a quality standstill.
Let's evaluate how MW3 will be by looking at it's developers, and it's predecessors.
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 will be developed by 3 teams. An Infinity Ward with all the good bits and pieces missing, an Activision subsidiary called "Sledgehammer", and our friend Raven.
Let's start with our pals, IW.
They make great games. MW2 may have left too much grit in my mouth and too many seizures from the never-ending explosions, but it was fun. And, as previously stated, they did shock the world with the goliath MW1 was.
They got a bad deal, them and the publisher of CoD games, Activision, got into a heated legal battle, resulting in many top IW members getting fired, and many lead designers departing the company as well. The Prince is now Pauper... in the most tragic of scenarios.
IW will be co-developing the singleplayer game with Sledgehammer
Now Sledgehammer.
Remember how Microsoft cut off some extra mass, called it 343, and put an aluminum foil crown on it, forever labeling it the King of Halo? well, they're not doing anything so far, except releasing the extremely popular and well-recieved Halo Waypoint, a go to stop to unify the Halo Community.
Replace Microsoft with Activision, and put yourself in Activision's shoes, a big-time publisher who just got into a scandal with one of your biggest developers that stirred some tense feelings. Not to mention, your biggest rival and his 2-letter name is really annoying you with his marketing. What would you do? Sounds like you'd do what Microsoft did, only use this team of Activision employees to keep the IW boys in line, make the game into something that the higher-ups at Activision know will break a 3rd record, and do it with as little effort and cost available, crafting an extremely popular, low-grade product. well... low-grade as compared to the true blockbusters of today, the Crysis' and the Bulletstorms, the Dead Risings, even EA Sports is pushing their games to become more innovative to craft a richer experience. Fifa 11? Awesomeness. B^)
This will ultimately put a mindset into other developers that if they want to sell millions, they just have to do something similar to Call of Duty... lowering the bar for all games, eventually creating a standstill in game quality. Sure they're somewhat fun experiences, but they all maintain a very mediocre level.
Remember the last time in history something very popular maintained a line of mediocrity nothing could achieve higher than?
I'll give you a moment...
Got it? Yep? Good job. That's right.
The Communistic Union of Soviet Socialist Republics collapses after 60-odd years of repression towards the people of Asia and Eastern Europe.
Think about that for a little bit, my friends.
Alright, it seems I've visited the transition of CoD's over teh past 4 years without even noticing. We'll just move onto the 3rd developer of Modern Warfare 3.
Raven Software. Let me give you a history of titles Raven has worked on. Quake 4, Wolfenstein (2009), Turok (rebooted). These titles sound familiar? Raven just can't seem to make a good game. Turok was a bust, Wolfenstein's openworld was pointless, as was the game as a whole, although it did insult some of the industry's veteran community a bit too much. Quake 4 was only halfway good because legendary developer, id, was developing it with Raven. Can we really trust the next installment of Video Games' crown jewel to a junkyard like Raven?
Raven will be developing the ever-addicting Multiplayer aspect of Modern Warfare 3
As I've stated before my whole monotony of quality argument, let me quickly restate it using a metaphor. As the years go by, time is measured on the X-axis, while the overall quality is measured on the Y-axis. The greater in value of the slope between the two points means the sequel was overall, what a sequel should do, take the previous game, fix its flaws, and add some goodies while at it. Assassin's creed, Mass Effect, Dead Rising, halo 3, and Resident Evil 3 all have steep curves leading to their respective blockbuster sequels.
Call of Duty 3 to Modern Warfare's line is, in my opinion, the steepest a line's gotten in a long time. Modern Warfare to Black Op's? the flattest. The community is starting to realize this, and it's not going to be good for Activision until some kind of change is made that IW made back in 2007.
For my closing, I'll look at Battlefield.
Battlefield 2 shocked the world with superb multiplayer, releasing alongside Ratchet and Clank 3, God of war, Half-Life 2, and Halo 2 as one of the best titles of teh year. Sound familiar?
Four years later, Digital Illusions CE (DICE), the master minds behind Battlefield, took to the consoles after their PC only run, and released a strange new game with a strange new engine in 2008, Bad Company 1. The Frostbite engine was able to simulate war-like scenarios and house destruction physics, shellshock, and bulet time/fall with excelled quality. However, the game was considered only above average, an 8.5, if you would.
Two years later, in a cold march of 2010 with Mass Effect 2 and God of War 3 warm from play in our libraries, the Swedes at DICE gave us Bad co. 2, a revamped, ultra-awe inspiring shooter that gave the Frostbite a new makeover and the new multiplayer king, Modern Warfare 2, a bit of a pinch.
Now, its 2011. This is what DICE has been planning. The multiplatform releases of the Bad Co. spinoffs were a beta, a test, of the Frostbite engine. DICE knew they had to make the ultimate shooter experience for the industry, so spanning across two games and three platforms, they gathered enough data to create the divine Frostbite 2.0.
Go watch some Battlefield 3 gameplay videos, and cover teh hud with your hands. You'll be blown away.
Taht's an example of raising the bar, wanting to create a game that would require two previous games to perfect an engine to run it? The amount of money and manpower required to attempt this feat was massive, and through it all, EA has proven that despite weird marketing, they will defeat Modern Warfare 3. Not by sinking to its level and trying to do Cod better than them, but by trying to create a game that will truly be, the perfect shooter, and that's what the games of the future need.
-Chillz
Three years later...
Three CoD's later...
Three gritty, corridor-shooters later...
You used that previously.
:P
Infact. Most of that is a copy and paste from what I would imagine is your post on why you fear for Modern Warfare 3. xD
True, but they need to keep their cool to win, not going in rage mode. You don't see professional players act like 12 year olds, you seem them acting professional, calm, focused and collective.
In-game, definitely, but if something dumb happens (A decision they should not have made that cost them the game), they will most likely be pissed because gaming is, to a lot of professionals, more a passion than a profession - which is why they do it.
Define "hatin'".
Hatin'.
The general terminology of that word. You be hatin' on Treyarch, you seem to be directing blame and hate towards that company.
You be hatin', hater.
Even though so many people hate on COD BO, you still see them buying DLC and awaiting MW3, don't you?
Yeah, but I think they're spineless idiots who can't stick up for their principles.
Which is the case with a lot of people - if they don't know the problems, they don't make the effort to, if they know the problems, they don't care.
For a bad game, it sure has great popularity.
Which is one of my points against CoD - it doesn't deserve such popularity.
This must be a terrible analogy, but let's say Black Ops is like Justin bieber. Even though many people love him and hate him, they all listen to his music.
The differenece is the people who play CoD generally don't dislike the game.
Unless of course they're raging at it.
Also, when MW3 comes out, I'm interested in the outcome of FPS gaming. Just sayin'
The outcome? I'll give you an example of a shooter that will come out soon after MW3 in 2012.
Homefront 2.
- H
It's not like have anything against Treyarch
What? It's hard to interpret your point when you seem to have missed out some key words... :P
Or they secretly enjoy black ops, but hate to admit it?
Enjoying games is insanely easy, but when this game has had little effort to actually make it beyond the basic game, I dislike it for that reason, not because it wouldn't be "fun".
Simply put, what games aren't enjoyable? The standard should be being pushed up but with Triple A games like CoD going DOWN or staying the same, it's not gonna move.
This is one of the main reasons I won't play CoD, apart from it being a bad game skill-wise anyway.
*cough* Modern warfare 3 *cough*. Another hated sequel, another mass profit from it. cha-ching!
... What? I don't see your point here.
I hear "Black ops sucks *****" 99% of the time, so riddle me that.
Did I not mention the raging?
Actually, since BO community are generally a younger community, they act differently.
A 22 pakistani was harassing me on Modern Warfare 2 when I was playing for being gay, when he doesn't know me.
I'm 14, don't bring age into this.
They don't hate the game, but blame a player and they take anger on whoever is on sight.
My brother-in-law says otherwise when raging.
Here's my point - does it freakin' matter? It's rage inducing for little reason, the game does not let you improve because it hasn't got a large skill-margin nor a wide variety of points you can advance on, it's only point and shoot.
I'd be fine if it was just a relaxing shooter that isn't meant to be taken competitively, but it even fails to do that. Noob tubes are useless in Black Ops, overpowered in MW2, Second Chance / Last Stand is absurd to say the least and general weaponry is insanely powerful.
You know WHY I can pass judgement on the balance of the game? Because I personally find myself above the standard of what CoD caters to in terms of skill. I don't rage, I keep my cool, I always (You know... before I stopped playing) had a positive ratio and I didn't use "nooby" classes. I think I retain the right to pass judgement on this game in such ways because it is nowhere near as competitive as people like to think.
How about a game I CAN'T pass judgement on? Starcraft II. I am nowhere near good enough or experienced enough to pass judgement on pretty much ANYTHING in Starcraft II, because the standard of the highest skillset is SO HIGH, there are professional players and even so they have differing thoughts on the general balance.
CoD? Caters to what are generally (and wrongly) called "Casual" players.
Prove me wrong that raging really isn't the point - they're semi-valid reasons to be peeved when I engage a 1v3 on CoD because my two "teammates" died and then I can't take them out?
Also, I'd like to say that CoD is not a team game. It may have "team" in Deathmatch but to me, and most other people (in a passive manner) that only means you don't need to watch your back.
c) most likely blame somebody at the time.
Yes. Common case, and it's usually CoD that does that, if it were other games where generally you don't have a reason to complain you would be more focused on NOT letting that happen again instead of raging about it the next time because you was too busy thinking that it's a ton of crap.
Not saying this doesn't apply to other games, but in my kind of games (Starcraft II) I know for a fact that I can only blame myself.
Same applies for if I win, I did it, and there are no excuses.
I thought about how Call of duty scars will affect FPS games in the future, and how much it will be set as an example/inspiration to future FPS games.
Inspiration? What exactly is inspiring? The fact that you can release what is essentially the same thing once a year and be rich for it?
But given how you added the word "scars" I have to question what exactly you meant with that sentence -- that people will learn from the mistakes made by the Developers and as such won't fall into the trap of... well, money whoring, essentially?
- H
You must be logged in to post a reply!