The only things I really liked from the COD Ghosts MP reveal was character customization, peek and lean, sliding, clans and seeing what's outside a sniper scope.
Killersup is willing to bet any kind of money that anyone with any kind of lag at all will find this game even more unplayable than before. The peak option, it takes a quarter second to kill someone, if Killersup has a full second of lag, then he was dead while on his screen the enemy is still hiding behind the wall.
Also, the slid and shoot mechanic, great idea, but almost certainly it will be abused.
There was nothing impressive at all in the trailer or livestream. Just more of the same game. A few changes here and there, some changes return from MW3 and weapons still have very low recoil. Graphics are "meh". The fact you can have a lot of perks scares me, which will probably end up in a balancing problem. Don't know about connection and lag issues fixes but I made a decision: I won't buy it. Just wanted to say what I thought about the multiplayer release. Have a nice day.
Multiplayer trailer looked better than the past few. Interactive/changing maps should be fun. Graphics looked good for cod. I wasn't really lookig forward to it till now. It did more for me than the past multilayer trailers. I've only seen the trailer though, been busy all day. Tomorrow I'll have a better opinion on it.
1) Yeah, graphics look a bit better. But then again, they could just be showing the next gen version. Which, while I can't fault them for doing so, doesn't really mean much since its the console doing the work.
2) Slide and Shoot? Interactive maps? Plentry of other franchises have been doing that for a long time. Crysis comes to mind, as does Battlefield. They didn't show anything that I felt was truly innovative, and that its new to the series leads me to question Iw's ability to pull it off without bungling it in some fashion. Knowing CoD, the "interactive" features are more than not highly scripted "ress X" sort of thing.
3) Yeah, it looks better than the last few CoDs. That I'd rather have smallpox than AIds is also an equally true statement. CoD has been inarguably terrible in my opinion since BO/MW3. Horrible balance, terrible maps, and truly clueless devs. Was watching the video for the last BO2 DLc and the guy said the maps offered very long range engagements... And showed footage of the shorter end of medium range. Not to mention terrible map design/lane design. CoD4 nailed it. WaW completely dropped the ball as far as lanes are concerned. MW2 mostly nailed it, but was open enough to make up for it. After that, the logic became "lets make the maps so small that our inability to actually design maps and workable lanes is hidden." I shouldn't feel like every playlist is just a slightly larger Rust.
Will I be buying it? No. I'd rather (and will) get BF4, which has the same stuff plus tanks, jets, and choppers. I'm not paying 60 bucks for regurgitated BS that isn't any different then any of the last four titles. I truly think that if everyone could play CoD4 at its finest for a few hours, nobody but the true fanboys would buy the new installments.
But then theres Activision's "We'll stop patching the game after two years, so that you're forced to buy new games in order to have a playable multiplayer! Because ***** customers, right!"
Customer: "Geez Activision, you're really reaming me up the hutthole right now! So heres more money so you can keep doing it! Hahaha!"
And then everyone wonders why everything is the way it is.
But dang, didn't mean that to be as ranty as it became. Oh well.
Knowing CoD, the "interactive" features are more than not highly scripted "ress X" sort of thing.
This. I watched a lot of videos and the commentators were so excited about "interactive" maps and what you just said is exactly what I thought about "interactive". It should be like the doors in Radiation (BO1) or the fish getting out of the way in the trailer.
Yeah, I did notice that they weren't all that great, it was nice that they change sound depending on where you are though.
@Maverik: I agree, from what little I've played of it I can tell it was a really great game in it's time, and I feel exactly the same way about MW2. But now both of those times are passed and I am only left with fond memories of how awesome MW2 used to be. At this point for me it's just seeing if the game has real potential and if it does getting it as it is the closest I'll ever be to playing the good ones in their prime again. Just hoping that someday they'll make another great one, and when they do I'll play a couple hundred hours and make sure that this time I get the most out of it because the next game is likely to suck and it will most certainly suck the good one from it's prime and make it something less.
Why do they have to put what looks like the best bo2 zombies map in the dlc with the worst maps? I'm spending 15 bucks for you Dempsy, Nikolai, taiko, and Richthofen. Please be worth it. I'm not pre ordering ghosts. I'll buy the ps4, then buy the game. Besides, the current gen ghost will suck major balls. I know you can trade in the old gen for the new for 10 bucks at GameStop but it ain't worth it. I can survive a few months without another cod. Besides, im getting back into borderlands recently. I really hope they don't make a cod the year after ghosts. Just take a break and make a really good one.
From the ways it sounds Sleedgehammer games will come out with a MW4. Hopefully, they let be the game of the year for Cod, and that will give Treyarch another year to make a game that doesn't include target finders....
What I really want is for them to be at least on a two year schedule and have treyarch make zombies and IW make story/spec ops and then they work together for multiplayer. It would make a lot of people unhappy, but it would make a better game.
