Given sledgehammer is full of veteran developers(even though it's a new studio, they are all vastly experienced) I trust them to deliver a great game.
A game will never be error free, but the problems people are used to in call of duty will be removed for the most part since it's using a brand new engine. The current engine has been used on cod2 and then cod4 and on, just modified. It was an old outdated engine that they kept lathering paint on to make it shiny again. Hopefully Treyarch and IW will follow suit and stop using it in their next titles as well.
I understand the huge sweeping changes being a potential issue and I agree that it is a huge risk, but at the same time I feel it's necessary to drive innovation in a game that's had very little over the years. Calling it a cod halo though doesn't make sense. At least let them reveal the multiplayer before you judge it so harshly which will be around august if they follow the same pattern as the last two games. If we know anything about cod reveals, it's that the first trailer is often misleading to what the actual multiplayer experience will be. Sales and population numbers after a month will let us now if they succeeded or failed in this endeavor.
I hear what you are saying about waiting to see what the game actually brings to the table. But, I think what many of the people here and on Facebook are hoping for is to influence the actual final product. The idea is to address design flaws prior to production. We don't want to get stuck with something we already know is broken in concept. Why does the game have to evolve into Halo? Can't you improve games without changing their basic foundation? This idea of "stale" is skewed. Would you change the rules of football because Madden has been essentially the same game for over 25 editions? Maybe add an exoskeleton when you convert on a field goal, allowing you to leap over blockers on your end zone game? Or try to steal some of the FIFA gamers by adding soccer themes? Games do not have to sell-out to be a long term success.
"Good points, yet, they choose to indulge their time. A point has to be drawn, where the person continues and its seems more harming than good or they become annoying and avoidable."
If you can't have an adult conversation where people disagree with you and are winning a topic, then you should apply your own words to yourself.
I said, good points and followed up with what is considered a topic on the subject, playing a game (someone) does not like. And you can win, all you want.
Just humor be a bit. How exactly does this seem like a Halo rip off? I'm confused as to why that's the comparison. No genetic enhancements. No alien weaponry. The exo-suits are literally what the military is working on today in the real world. Raytheon Company - Raytheon Unveils 2nd Generation Exoskeleton Robotic Suit - YouTube
Railguns and laser weaponry is also being worked on and used today so it's not a stretch to think in 40 years(the game takes place in 2054 so 40 years ahead of us), we could have these weapons handheld. We're even exploring cloaking technology and have had some success with it and prove it's possible.
Think back to 1974 technology. We've advanced extremely fast in 40 years and it's an exponential growth, not linear. Do you understand what I'm saying? This is 100% a plausible reality that we are already working towards. We have a device that fits in our pocket that connects us to the knowledge of the world for crying out loud.
Yes. You are absolutely correct. All of this weaponry and tech is on its way in the future. But, if you read the posts here and on FB, most people do not want futuristic games. They want real war games, based on real wars. From the past and present. They want what the franchise was founded upon. They want product consistency and integrity. People do not want more exploits, i.e. the Halo-hop and cloaking. And, nobody said it's a Halo rip off. They just don't want Halo style play in CoD. If you like Halo, then go play Halo. I like CoD and want to play CoD. It is that easy. Just keep your Halo OUT of my CoD.
I think it's just disgusting that Sledgehammer are trying something new for COD. Remember how everybody keeps saying they just want the devs to keep recycling the same crap every year? Oh....hold on.....turns out people were saying they DON'T want them to keep recycling the same crap every year! Silly me! Yet people are now moaning they're trying something new.
I Agree call of duty need to take a break before releasing a game..to me its just a bunch of add ons to the last game they make..besides that who cares about futuristic b.s nothing was fixed as far as gameplay..i rather get the new battlefield..call of duty went halo , gears of war and medal gear solid on us..what the hell they thinking watch this game go down on sales ******* retards..im not getting this to make me more angry
It doesn't have any halo style play as far as I know. We haven't seen how it plays yet so using that as a basis of an argument doesn't make sense still. Call of Duty 4 was the first call of duty to break out of pre-existing wars. Can you take a wild guess which call of duty started it on it's enormous popularity? And I like Halo/Cod/Battlefield/Titanfall and if anyone is ripping anyone off, it's between cod <->battlefield. They are similar in nature so it must be true right? Even though if you played both of them they are ENTIRELY different games and don't feel similar in the slightest regard. Future =/= Halo.
Do people just have zero concept of time or just no sense of what's actually "futuristic" in terms of being Halo-like?
Advanced Warfare is absolutely NOTHING like Halo. Not even close. They would have to move franchise hundreds if not thousands of years into the future before it started to look anything like Halo. Advanced Warfare takes place a mere FORTY years in the future (which, by today's modern standards, is not that huge a leap anymore compared to the 1800s and early 1900s) and if people bothered to even look up interviews and information rather than pass judgment based on tidbits of information passed off by YouTubers and a teaser trailer, they would see that everything Sledgehammer is doing is based on technology that already exists (interviewing people who actually work on the stuff and such too), just like IW and Treyarch did with Ghosts and BO2 respectively, and they are simply trying to make it as "realistic" as possible based on forty years of R & D of that technology.
It's not like we have Super Star Destroyers traversing other galaxies or flying around in laser/ion-firing starfighters, all capable of traveling at light speed, or Mobile Suits running around everywhere with billions of people living in orbital space colonies and whatnot.
Seriously, people were calling Ghosts, a mere 10 (now 9) years into the future, "futuristic" as well as BO2 (13, now 11 years into the future) and comparing THOSE to Halo too. The ignorance of such comments is baffling. Where were the Halo complaints when MW2 was said to be taking place 7 years into the future at the time it came out (2009, game taking place in 2016)? Nothing. Why? Because it simply LOOKED similar to what we were able to easily recognize. Now that things are actually looking different than what we're used to, the game is suddenly "too futuristic" and crap like that when it's all stuff that actually already exist(ed) in some shape or form, but we just don't see nearly as often as the much more common things we're used to.
A real life comparison would be stuff like the F-117 Nighthawk or the B-2 Spirit. Those two things were radically different compared to anything anyone was used to seeing at the time, so terms like "futuristic" were thrown around a lot when the fact is that such technologies were (secretly) being developed as far back as WWII and only at that time were they able to be successfully implemented and revealed to the world. Nowadays though, almost 30 years later, we're more than used to their presence (the F-117 even retired from active service in 2007-08), so they don't seem like such a huge deal anymore.