1 4 5 6 7 8 Previous Next 76 Replies Latest reply on Apr 5, 2014 12:29 AM by trialstardragon Go to original post RSS
      • 50. Re: CoD getting progressively worse?

        Cant go back for as times change people change and want newer bigger more exciting things.. simpler is not exciting it becomes repetitive and boring.

        • 51. Re: CoD getting progressively worse?

          Different strokes for different folks. 



          I've enjoyed every game of COD that has come out since COD4.  the worst IMHO being MW2 due to danger close and tubing.  Maps were great though.  I have adapted to each game and been decent at each.  I consider ghosts to be one of the best titles.

          • 52. Re: CoD getting progressively worse?

            Well i enjoy the older games much more than what we have now and i must not be the only one either.Do you think cod should be only future warfare from now on or scrapped altogether because as you suggest there is no other way to go with the franchise?Is cod not a ww2 game?That's where it all started and it should be fitting to go back to that timeline.There is plenty of future games out there without having to turn cod into one too.

            • 53. Re: CoD getting progressively worse?

              I would personally love to see it go back to ww2.  I don't mind the futuristic stuff but I like change in COD.  Not in other games, but I like it in COD.

              • 54. Re: CoD getting progressively worse?

                No, Cod is not just a WW2 game. It is a war game plain and simple. It may have started in WW1 and WW2 with past games; but it is an evolving game as is what Ghosts is. Not everyone likes playing old war games that never change and remain the same with only minor differences such as maps and minor weapon changes. The whole reason to buy new games is not to constantly repeat the same things, but to try out and learn new things. Or else they might as well of never made a new game and only continued to make map packs instead. Which would be boring and dull.. Making a game for only minor new weapons since there would be a limit based upon past war weapons gets repetititve and boring too. So the game has to evolve and change as the times change. Which means players have to learn new skills and adapt and stop thinking past skills will or should directly transfer from one game to the next every new game taht comes out. That just because they were good in one game does not mean they will be in the next game if they refuse to learn and adapt to that game.

                • 55. Re: CoD getting progressively worse?

                  Yes i agree with you but not everyone thinks like that especially the older generation.This game looks to be heading towards another halo or tf and i think that's the wrong direction for cod.I heard a rumor that the next game is going to be futuristic as well.We now have 3 different developers and id hate to see all 3 making futuristic games,that will be too repetitive.I don't like where the franchise is heading and i don't think they will be doing away with it either.

                  • 56. Re: CoD getting progressively worse?

                    Of course it is.


                    Apart from the MW3 anomaly, in which that game was comfortably the worst in the series, the next iteration i.e. every sequel is usually worse than the previous. Black Ops 1 was probably the only slight improvement; in my eyes, over MW2.


                    The campaigns are worse, the multiplayers are significantly worse (Player counts back that up) and the Zombie/Alien spinoffs have declined ever since their peak popularity in WAW/Black Ops 1 (Player counts back that up as well).


                    The biggest issues for me in this game, which surely affect player count:


                    - The maps. Most are large and terribly designed or too small with awful clutter. If you aren't getting shot in the back on Freefall, you are getting light up like a Christmas Tree on a slow paced boring map like Sovereign. The only maps that even begin to compliment this franchise are: Warhawk, Freight, Tremor, Strikezone and to an extent Prison Break. Not going to get more into this because it's been done to death, but the key factor here is that maps like Siege are not fun. If you enjoy maps like Siege then you shouldn't even be on a Call off Duty game in the first place. The same problem has taken over the Zombies spin off. Just pointless big maps like Tranzit with just too much nonsense going on, when all you want to do is buckle down and shoot some zombies. In Aliens it makes more sense, but that is still a downgrade on original zombies.


                    - Spawns. Still very poor. Minor spawn protection should exist so the grief trappers get griefed themselves, or spawns are properly solved.


                    - The Noob/Veteran disparity. Possibly the greatest gap in the history of the franchise (Which is actually catered towards the casuals/noob in the first place). Never before has the veteran been at his most powerful than this game. For reference I was a 2.2 K.D in Black Ops 1, a 3.2 in Black Ops 2 and now sit at a 3.8 K.D in this game; all strictly TDM. I don't think I have gotten better. Just that the noobs are so easy to punish in this game by adapting a boring campy long range style. I have always been a camper. Now things are just too easy, which brings me on to:


                    - Camping. It is ludicrously easy in this game and takes less skill than it ever has. I actually feel embarrassed by some of the kills in this game I can manage via the camping playstyle. So embarrassed in fact, that for the first time in the entire franchise I actually have a full on rushing Vector/Marathon class, because the games are so boring that I actually feel the need to move myself; something I never did before Ghosts. In Black Ops 2 I would post up with an MK-48 and that would be my enjoyment for the game because people would run all over the place, get gunned down, or take me out with an SMG (How it's supposed to be). Now I can't do that because people are too scared to transgress the horrible maps, for fear of getting insta killed with a 2 hit Assault Rifle or a camping LMG Thermal Scope baby, sound whoring 1 quarter of the entire map using Amplify because they lack the tact to actually find enemies with their eyes, so they let the game do it for them. Amplify and Thermal Scopes are a cancer to this franchise (Shock horror neither of these horrible inceptions existed in Call of Duty 4; the best game in the series). Even as a nasty camper I haver never stooped so low as to use either of these horrible game mechanics.


                    Camping is far too easy and low cost in this game. There is no penalty whatsoever to sit somewhere with a silenced LMG, Guard Dog, Thermal and Amplify. Satcoms are terrible so Off the Grid isn't necessary. Maps are huge so getting quickly (With the exception of terrible spawns) overwhelmed is rare. Easy mid range streaks like the old Hellstorm Missile, Lightning Strike are non existent in this game so you can't flush them out that way. Close quarters guns like Shotguns and SMGs barely outclass the 2/3 shot 'ranged' guns like the AK-12, Remington and M27 in any perceivable situation, worsened by the large maps. I.E.Ds are far easier to use than Claymores/Betties were. it goes on and on which brings me to:


                    - Rushing classes cost far too much to run in this game compared to camping ones. To realistically rush with ease in this game you need: Marathon, Agility, Ready Up, Dead Silence, Sitrep and Incognito. This total makes 12, which basically means you simply cannot equip all of these perks. Agility could possibly be sacrificed, but there is definitely 10 points of value which are absolutely essential to even begin to contemplate running around without getting BS'd. Now let's look at an essential camping cost: I.E.D, Lethal x 2. That is basically it. You don't actually need anything else. 3 points which can barely be considered essential whatsoever. Everything else is a bonus at the campers luxury.


                    Hopefully Sledgehammer games comes up with some new inspiration in this franchise, because Infinity Ward got it spectacularly wrong. It's unfortunate.

                    • 57. Re: CoD getting progressively worse?

                      Runandgunerring wrote:


                      Ghosts is up there with the best of em

                      Cod 4>WaW>Ghosts>BO>MW3>MW2>>>>>>>>>>BO2

                      Interesting list. I always pictured it more as:

                      Cod4 > MW3 > BO2 > Ghosts > BO > WaW > MW2

                      • 58. Re: CoD getting progressively worse?

                        I am of the older generations being that I am in my 40's. I have played games for nearly 30 years. So this is nothing new to me, nor was it a problem to adapt or deal with. This game is the precusor to Halo, there is many similarities between the two games. Only natural that it would progress even further towards its. Just as how TF is also a Halo derivitive and so was Section 8, and Crysis..and any other shooter that has armor or speical weapons or abilities the player ends up using beyond simple guns that fire only bullets.

                        • 59. Re: CoD getting progressively worse?

                          Maps.. not terribely huge or poorly designed they just do not play how some players want them too. They are not as favorable to certain playstyles as they were in past games. Just because you do not like them does not make them terrible or of bad design.


                          Spawns.. will never be fixed the way some players want them. For as long as they are dynamic which means random spawning and players in core continue to hit the A butoon right away to spawn as fast as possible there will be revenge spawn kills/deaths.


                          Noob/veteran.. this game takes more skill than past games, so ofcourse veterans are going to do better than noobs.


                          Camping.. has always existed in all of the games and depending upon the team and game mode just as bad as this game. This game is no worse than BO, MW3, BO2 or even MW2 for it. For even in those games players could and did camp just as easily and as much as in this game. What you descirbed as how it is susposed to be is not how it is meant to be. Not all games are meant to always play the same. Players have to adapt to the game instead of the game adapting to them and how they want to play.


                          Use the perks to counter amplify and thermal scopes.. oh wait you dont want too.. for taht would mean not using the perks you want to use instead...


                          Satcoms are not terrible, they are far better tahn the uav spam.. which lead to red dot hunters.. that needed red dots to get kills.


                          The SG's still easuly outclass AR and SMG when used by the right players..they take more skill in this game than in past games where you just randomly sprayed them for easy kills.


                          IED as just as easy to avoid by using the right perks to counter them..again.. it sees as you dont want to have to change your loadout but instead have the game adapted to how you want to play instead.


                          Rushing.. is not the main point of this game.. This game was meant to be more of a tatical player this time around and not a rusher game like MW3 and BO2. Not every game is meant to be rusher catered too. And no you do not need all of those perks to rush easily and effectively in this game. You just need to rush smarter and not like the headless chicken of past games. I can rush jus as easy in this game on almost any map and not need even half of those perks at all. In fact I can run a full stealth perk setup and rush very effectively.


                          IW only got it wrong because they did not cater to how YOU or how rushers wanted to play the game the most as how BO2 was created. That game was terrible in design because of that fact.

                          1 4 5 6 7 8 Previous Next