How anyone thinks BO1 was a bad game is beyond me.
That game was outstanding.
It was a bad game for the QS/TS players because it was harder to do so at the begining of the game, until 3arc caved and patched it. Just as IW has caved and patched Ghosts to allow all the challenges to be open all the time making it way to easy to level up now.
BO1 was prob one of the best in the series,minus rc-xd and 2nd chance.After that is when things started going downhill.I think there is a big split in the community between treyarch and infinity ward games.I personally prefer treyarch because i think the game play is better except for blops2 which felt like an iw game for some reason.I agree with the op that the game needs to go back to what it was,more simplistic,exciting,fun.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.