21 Replies Latest reply: Nov 3, 2011 10:13 AM by kraze1994 RSS

What happened to the COD series?

I have been a huge COD fan from the beginning but what happened between COD4 and Modern Warfare 2? Please excuse me I don't consider World at War a COD game...

 

Who suddenly decided that 60FOV was better,18 players is better then 64, matchamaking is better then dedicated servers? I have been sticking by the COD series since COD4, but after that game the quality of the games went down and the communication to the players went out the window.

 

Now my biggest problem with all these changes is that we cannot have full dedicated servers. I completely understand server admins having to  much power, I disagree with the changess 100% but I understand. People say that clan members will go in to there server and password it, and rank up. You know what BC2 did? Passworded servers become automatically unranked...easy fix eh? Along with this pre-match that was introuduced which I hated, but hey it was another way to stop stat padding. Sure all this fine by me. What really really pisses me off is why must we waste our money on a  game where we need to play with some guy on DSL hosting our matches? No matter what you say matchmaking sucks and it is a long ways away from being able to support a decent game. I actually even think this is why there is a 18 player cap, because unless you have some good broadband or Fiber it literally kills your conection.

 

Not to mention that the host has a huge advantage, There is a  big difference between 10ms and 130ms. Users who are also host can ban/kick users. There was a tool out that monitored inbound connections and all you need to do was block that specific IP via your firewall and done, user got disconnected and was no longer able to play with you ever again until he got a new IP or you unbanned him.

 

Another thing that bothers me is why do you limit FOV? I have never heard a reasonable excuse for this. Only thing I can think of is that it allows people to see more, therefor it becomes unfair to *noobs*. So how about making a button in the graphic setting that tells them exactly what it does with a nice little slider like just about all Valve games have?

 

Speaking of Valve;

http://www.nextgenerationgaming.net/news.php?extend.125.5

 

This article pretty much say that all new FPS shooters are catering to noobs. When I say noobs I use it as a general word describing someone who is not inclinded enough to learn things or who is just flat out brand new to the game or COD series.

 

Then another thing, why is max FPS limited? I remember a long time ago that setting your FPS to 120 in COD4 allowed you to jump just a tid bit higher. Now were you guys to lazy to fix this or find the root cause of this and just decided it would be better to limit it to 90 and move on? Before anyone flames me on this I know that we cannot even tell the difference between 90 and 200..etc., however when I want to show my E-penis off, to my buddies and say my ATI 6950  can pull 700 frames, I should be allowed to.

 

So this brings me to one of my last points, why is there no left or right lean? I personally am a very skilled player and used this in COD4 like a champ to confuse and dodge enemy fire. Suddendly it is gone. Why? Let me know, these 65 year old COD players and 13 year old kids cannot figure out how to use it, so we must suffer? Makes no sense. Either learn,ask for help or just shut up about it.

 

Lately I have been playing BF3 and it is definitely a good game, but COD just has that feel to it, and every game release we are getting screwed over and over. Why not just make a game and let us have at it? It's not like less people will buy the game. If anything more people will buy the game.  Look at COD4, they did that exact same thing and look how good of a game it is? People still play it. I have actually noticed a pattern. Anyone ever notice that there is very little to none trash talk about anything from COD4 and back? Then after COD4 people started crying and complaining more? Hm, could it be that half of the IW team left and started there own studio, because Activision became a greed....?

 

 

 

Then the worst part about all of this, is COD is like crack, no matter how many times my dealer rips me off I keep coming back for more. FML

  • Re: What happened to the COD series?

    Agree with you whole heartedly mate, I'm of the same thinking as you.

     

    It's bollocks how they keep dumbing it down further and further when it isn't needed, lets be honest though, even if you did'nt use lean you could still rip people apart quite easily but it's nice to have it there, and peer to peer or listen server is a step back in time, much like battlefield 3's battlelog, there's a reason why gamepy was dumped in that respect and that's because it was shite.

     

    I know they cater for the consoles now and i've accepted that but atleast for the love of god just put 5 more minutes into making it and keep dedicated server's like they were in cod4, because it is so big on consoles that's where the stats and cod elite matter, on pc we don't care about stats only about slapping each other with an enormous e-peen in the face. but apparently we need stats and because we have stats our dedi's are unranked coz they wouldn't want us padding our stats in dedi servers like you say, but a peer to peer network is so much easier to exploit, look at mw2 for example, it took less hassle to fiddle my stats however i wanted.

     

    Black ops has remotely stored stats to combat that stat fiddling on the client end and again like you say it's not hard to stop a password server from being unranked while a public is ranked, comon IW make a god damn effort even if it's only for 5 minutes ffs.

  • Re: What happened to the COD series?

    I used to be a fairly dihard fan until Infinityward and Activision decided all they care about is money and not their customers. There have been many times I've asked kindly for help or asked questions about the game and I have either been ignored or treated like an idiot or basically told to get stuffed. Well I might be playing the campaign only for the story line but bf3 is my new game of choice.

     

    Oh and thanks so much for ignoring me all these years Activision and Infinityward, really top effort you jerks.

    • Re: What happened to the COD series?
      WolfRidge

        Of course they cater for consoles, if you want to know why then just look on these forums and compare total posts, comments etc by Consoles vs PC.  That's why. After all they don't make games for kicks, they do it to make $£ and who can blame them for that?

      Bad mouthing these developers is futile and tired

       

      Just Play  (or don't)

      • Re: What happened to the COD series?

        I think we are all aware that after COD4 all Call of Duty games started getting built for consoles and ported for PC versions. Now I know nothing, zip,nada about game designing but from what I can tell limiting max FPS and field of FOV are nothing. They should literally be there and you must go out of your way to limit those.

         

        Leaning I could understand a bit more, and I still ended up getting 50-60 frags a game depending without it, but it was just that extra little thing that made the difference.

         

        Whenever they speak of lean, they always say it is more balanced..? Really? Why not get rid of the last stand and dropping a grenade on death? That seems really unfair. How about we get rid of death streaks or better yet grenade launchers?

         

        My idea of balance is if somoene has an unfair advantage, don't make them loose what they got but come back with a counter. Unfortunately the good players lost lean, while the bad players got 4 or 5 death streaks.

         

        Players who were able to utilize 90FOV, lost that and bad players got commando..

         

         

        I just don't understand why, we must cater to all these new players. Yes a little bit of open arms doesn't hurt but to the point where you need to start removing stuff from the game and making it easier to get kills is just pathetic. In my personal opinion the only thing that does is open the floor for good players to get constantly yelled at in game for being *hackers*. Only reason this happens is all these new players come in to MW2 or MW3 and have never played a COD in there life and cannot understand why I can here them across the map with my G35's or how my top end gaming machine doesn't lag when grenades go off. Why my $80 mouse literally lets me turn on a dime and shoot them before they can make it around the corner.

        • Re: What happened to the COD series?
          WolfRidge
          Really good discussion. Re' catering for new players, I think it's all about growing the franchise.  If we could objectively look at the reasons for the decisions that dev's make and see it from their POV.  I'ts about growing the franchise thus the community that we all participate in. I am a console player (PS3) but use a PC most of my working day (tech) we are all the same community.
          Besides all that who is too say that some nOOb can't arrive on the scene and dominate us all!!  We were all nOObs once upon a time. Weren't we? 
          • Re: What happened to the COD series?

            Completely agree, I guess  I may of come off to hard on the new players. I do know many of new players who have come in and kicked my arse many times.

             

            Just from where us gamers are sitting that is what it seems like. It just seems that every new release of catering to new and newer players.

             

            Also not really meaning to bash console either, I know we are all the same community and the only difference is the tech in our machines really. It just gets really annoying when someone starts favoring one side over the other, especially if the side that gets jipped is the side that helped start it all. COD was a PC made series and as it got bigger they expanded. So why should PC players get the short end.

             

            It almost like the devs work way to hard and cannot complete what they need to, so they cut corners. I know that devs are saying that the two year turn around time for a new COD is just to fast and they cannot keep up. Lately they have been splitting up studios, this studio does that and this studio does this, why not split it up between game platforms? This company does PC,this one does console..etc. Then every two years we switch so no platform thinks they get there game devoloped by an under par company.

             

            Good idea, but most likely will never happen..

  • Re: What happened to the COD series?

    I understand your frustration; I really do.

    But the issue isn’t in-game balance; it’s balance between “platforms they’re concerned with.

    It has everything to do with controllers, and machines; and nothing (or very little) to do with game play I.E. fairness.

     

    They’re trying to make the transition between the two major platforms (console, and PC) seamless.

    This is why they’ve been working so hard on integrating controllers on PC, and mouse and keyboard solutions on console.

    Personally I couldn’t care less, whether or not some can stand up from their console, and expect the same experience at their computer; but it is what it is (I’m just trying to answer the “why?”)

     

    It really is us vs. them, but “them” is actually two groups; console + PC, and console only; which actually makes us two groups, as well.

    Some of us (my self included have never, nor would we ever) touched a console; we should really call our selves PC “only”.

     

    Those of us in this group have a hard time rapping our mind around, why we should suffer, to accommodate the consolers. We have been accustomed to a certain level of control; and it really doesn’t seem fair to be told all of a sudden, you can do this or that because they can’t. 

     

    If we follow the logic that it has anything to do with “in game balance” we would wind up playing the first ever computer video game; who can press a button faster when the prompt appeared. (And bottom line: that’s what we play now).

     

    Truth is: as pointed out earlier; we’re all part of the PC community (else what are we doing here) but us PC only players just want what we’ve always had before; a choice!

    • Re: What happened to the COD series?

      You know I did not even look at this that way..

       

      That opens up a whole lot more for discussion and just creates more answers but answers a big one in my book.

       

      Now my question is why would you want seamless integration between consoles and PC's? That really doesn't make any sense at all. No matter how much they try it will never be the same, it will just get them the end result as it is now, pissed off PC players.

  • Re: What happened to the COD series?

    To be honest there are way more people who play on console, but I still think its unfair not to have a dedi server but know that it does take a lot of money to keep a dedi server up and judging by the amount of people that do play on PC it really wouldnt be a good idea. And you are right they are worried about the money. They will loose more money for having a dedi server then earning by selling the game for PC players.

    • Re: What happened to the COD series?

      I personally diagree with that, Once the dedi is coded in to the game, only thing that needs to be done is keep the master servers alive. Which is nothing for a big company like Activision. The COD2 master servers are still online. That game is old...

       

      PC players support there own servers and communities. You are right that consoles beat PC players when it comes to numbers but it is not enough to justify dropping pieces of a game.

       

      Also there is a completely different approach to dedi servers, BF3 introuduced dedi servers for Xbox. Now that is pretty cool.

       

      Valve did dedi split, you can have a real dedi or play matching making that is hosted from a dedi. Personally I would have no problem with this. My main concern is that matchmaking is not good enough to support a full PC match.

       

      MW2 is a fantastic example of this. My buddy has FIOS 25/25, he is usually chosen to be the host and is right in the middle of the U.S. Just about everyone in the US that is on decent cable or good DSL pings around 50-150 to him. Even with that good connection the game sucks and lag and hit reg is off.

       

      Wheneveryone in the U.S has High speed Cable or fios then by all means bring on the matchmaking but until then perfect, perfect, perfect it until it is ready.

       

      Also no matter how good the match making is, in a year or so when the player count on MW3 drops to half, instead of getting a host in our state, we get one in Florida. Now I am in Cali on Comcast 16/5. I would ping around 150ms to a dedi, I couldn't imagine someone on DSL.

      • Re: What happened to the COD series?
        D0T-C0M

        I can't believe what I'm about to say,  I think poison brings up some good points.  There I said it !!! LOL I do think that they are trying real hard to intenetionally blur the line between the PC and consoles.  I believe its both the console manufacturers and the game makers that want the games to be very similar on purpose.  The console makers for evident reasons want more people to play on consoles thus buy more games and console units.  The gamer makers want the Xbox and PS3 to be the same as PC because they do not have to spend the time and money developing a "just for PC" game.  Its all about the money and not about the end users.  Its all about how to make the most amount of money period.  From not wanting to host their own dedi game servers to not providing mod/map tools so they can sell their map packs to not coding a proper PC game with directx10/11 and other PC specific code that would make the game run better.  Let's face it in the corporate environment consoles have the huge advantage that they all have the same hardware to code for and us PC users, our machines use an infinite combinations of hardward which makes it a more expensive engagement.

         

        Now with MW3 I believe that dedicated servers is a welcomed addition for the PC community but don't kid yourself they only implemented it with as much effort as they wanted to spend.   Dedicated servers while still being unranked,  will be a great venue for clan matches and not so much for those that wanted the full MW3 experience in a dedicated server environment.  The reason IMO why they didn't go full out is because of,

         

        1- They want full control of the stats this control of ranked servers.

        2- They do not want to spend money hosting servers to use with the matchmaking system.

         

        As a PC gamer since before COD4 I really liked the addition of the matchmaking system in MW2 although I felt quite upset that because it was at the expense of the dedicated servers we had in COD4.  Now fast forwarding to the present, I hear people talking about returning back to the past and for me I have come to love how the matchmaking has become an intregal part of the game.  It has many advantages such as it has beautiful team play functionality where a group of up to 6 friends can play on a team.  I liked the lobby system, seamless matchmaking, etc..  Another advantage is there is no admins to create custom rules and/or otherwise interfere with the gameplay.  I understand that having an admin has its advantages as well as playing on a dedicated server instead of hosting the game on one of the player's computer.   As I stated I am NOT prepared to support having dedicated servers if this eliminates the matchmaking making system.  I am not prepared to see matchmaking linked up to a dedicated server UNLESS this dedicated server is hosted by Activision/IW/Sledgehammer or some 3rd party that has admins that abide by a strict code of conduct.  Now al this being said I think IW realises the advantages and have gone the cheap route by deciding to use the player's computers as the host.  This is not ideal we can all agree but let's not feud against eash others opionion on which system is best, let's attack the root cause which is Activision's greed in its attempt to increase its profit.  There is room in this game for improvement that for sure and I am sure that if they wanted they could make this the best game for everyone. PERIOD

  • Re: What happened to the COD series?
    spidy

    matchmaking to me is bad
    sure you can find a match with your 2 friends and be thrown in a 10min random game

     

    then again in cod4 or cod5 with dedi's we had a regular groep of Europian players

    from Holland ,Belgium,France,Germany,Italy,Sweden etc etc a groep of +-30 players
    we played regulary on a dedicated server in Holland
    we created a nice gaming enviroment for our selfs with a rotation of 50 custom-maps

    thats now all history because joe blow whats to party up with his 2 friends
    hopping from game to game


    instead of removing dedi's/features they should expanded them

     

    matchmaking on stock regular dedi's with Globaly Leaderboards, not in the server browser

     

    custom rules/and weapon limits on the server browser with ranking and unlocks

     

    unranked/modded on the server browser,hey its Modded they find away for ranking or unlocking
    if provided with the proper tools

    • Re: What happened to the COD series?
      D0T-C0M

      Most of what you had you can still have with what MW3 is providing so you'll still be able to host a server for your 30+ friends and the experience should be as it was before except for the ranking.  Its not perfect but at least you have that much.  I much prefer to play with friend base of approx. 10-15 where on any given night we "hop from server to server " as you say playing against other people meeting new clans and friends along the way.  Its all a matter of preference and I think what MW2 is providing isn't all bad because its a hell of a lot better than what black ops had.

  • Re: What happened to the COD series?

     

     

    As a PC gamer since before COD4 I really liked the addition of the matchmaking system in MW2 although I felt quite upset that because it was at the expense of the dedicated servers we had in COD4.  Now fast forwarding to the present, I hear people talking about returning back to the past and for me I have come to love how the matchmaking has become an intregal part of the game.  It has many advantages such as it has beautiful team play functionality where a group of up to 6 friends can play on a team.  I liked the lobby system, seamless matchmaking, etc..  Another advantage is there is no admins to create custom rules and/or otherwise interfere with the gameplay.  I understand that having an admin has its advantages as well as playing on a dedicated server instead of hosting the game on one of the player's computer.   As I stated I am NOT prepared to support having dedicated servers if this eliminates the matchmaking making system.  I am not prepared to see matchmaking linked up to a dedicated server UNLESS this dedicated server is hosted by Activision/IW/Sledgehammer or some 3rd party that has admins that abide by a strict code of conduct.  Now al this being said I think IW realises the advantages and have gone the cheap route by deciding to use the player's computers as the host.  This is not ideal we can all agree but let's not feud against eash others opionion on which system is best, let's attack the root cause which is Activision's greed in its attempt to increase its profit.  There is room in this game for improvement that for sure and I am sure that if they wanted they could make this the best game for everyone. PERIOD

    I really do not think it has anything to do with stats, well it does but I don't think it is the top priority. I think it just ends up being cheaper to code some crappy match making code in to the game and move along.

     

    Also I am not opposed to match making it makes itn extremely easy to find a game until there is only 1000 people playing the game and you need to wait 25 minutes for a game and end up having a host in France.

     

    Matchmaking is not bad. It is just before *its* time. It relies on a resource that is not good enough wide spread to support PC games. Not even sure how Xbox players can stand that crap. maybe it is because they have never expericenced a realy dedicated server..?

     

     

    Then not only are people(host) going to find ways to bypass just about 99% of the restrictions on there systems, host will have an advantage and will be able to ban users.

     

     

    I am also not debuting the facts that consoles make money money. Microsoft is doing one hell of a job going to all these game devs and getting special map packs..etc for there platform. However it just sucks that is has to be this way. Eventually what is going on will come around and bit the devs in the arse(IMO). It may not be today or two years from now, but when games graphics are so good and consoles canoot keep up, and Xbox gamers are complaing about how crappy these graphics are it will start an up roar on there end.

     

    @Klute

     

    I disagree that all console players are noobs, I used to think this a long time ago and still have some hate for the 13 kids who scream but not everyone is like that. It is really just a different envirment. I tried to play on Xbox and it was like trying to speak a different language.

     

    If someone is used to things being this way and suddenly it gets changed for this way, of course there is going to be a learning curve..etc. Besides the technology,controller PC and Xbox are really not to different.

     

    P.S This topic is doing good and I really do not want this to turn in to a flame war, so lets try to keep it civil.