22 Replies Latest reply: Aug 30, 2014 12:20 PM by Bielsalmighty RSS

    Seriously doubt its worth getting

    KTPhoenix

      I know i posted this in a thread but i feel as though this community needs to start thinking for once.

       

      I seriously dont think it is worth getting. I have not played COD in a few months because of the recycled material that has come about with this series now.

       

      Let me break down why I think this game is not worth it.

       

      We now have 3 developers making COD; IW, Treyarch and Sledgehammer. IW is in charge of making the modern/futuristic warfare games. Treyarch is in charge of making games that are NOT modern/futuristic. And now Sledgehammer is in charge of making whatever it is they are making.

       

      I have 2 problems with this Advanced Warfare game. This first problem being that with just the trailer alone, it looks too much like Titanfall. You see soldiers hoping around with jetpack like uniforms and using weapons that are too futuristic.

       

      The second problem I have is, why is Sledgehammer allowed to make this game that far into the future? Doesnt anyone remember the whole lawsuit that IW hit Treyarch with when Treyarch tried to make their game take place in 2024? IW claimed they solely owned the rights to make CODs based in the future. Yet Sledgehammer is getting a free pass to do that? Something doesnt sound right here. Why prevent Treyarch from making games in the future but allow Sledgehammer to get away with it. I dont care if Sledgehammer helped IW make Ghosts (abomination that was), they are now their own separate entity when it comes to making COD so they should not be allowed to make that kind of game in terms of legal standing.

       

      These games are starting to get too futuristic. Pretty soon we are going to have a COD version of Halo with the way things are playing out. They can only milk the series for so long before not only do things get repetitive and recycled (looking at you MW3 and Ghosts), but also when the games start looking like a different game franchise like Halo and Titanfall.

       

      I honestly do NOT expect this game to do well. I understand that millions of people will buy the game to start but the problem there is that they are only buying it because its "Call of Duty". They are only buying it because of the name. Then they will run into the same boring recycled issues they have had in the past 3 years and then the forum will inevitably light up with people complaining how this new COD is the "worst COD to date" (and dont act like they wont because everyone here knows this happens every year with every COD) and its not going to change.

       

      In all, I really dont think this game is worth getting at all. They are only trying to compete with Titanfall since Respawn is a rival due to who the president and ceo are (west and zampella, the ones Activision fired). Not only that but there is only so much you can milk out of a series before even your fan base says "you had a good run but that run should have ended 5 years ago, enough is enough, you are just embarrassing yourself now."

       

      COD should have quit while they were at the top. But they didnt. Now they are releasing nothing but crap and the same issues they refuse to address.

        • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
          phxs72

          Sounds like you are just done with the series.  You've argued that if they don't change it becomes repetitive and if they do change then its no longer COD.  That really doesn't leave them any options for what to do next.  Either way they go you will be disappointed.  That's a sure sign of someone that is just done with the series.  I'm not knocking you for it.  We all move on at some point in time.  Hopefully you can find something else that brings back that spark that you used to get from COD.  Good luck to you my friend.

            • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
              KTPhoenix

              You misinterpreted what i was saying.

               

              What i am trying to say is that there is no originality anymore with COD. And the more they try to put things "futuristically" the less it feels like COD.

               

              Look at MW2 on up. MW2 was original because of the whole killstreak system. BO 2 was original with their pick 10 system. But the games after that only repeated what these games did and there was nothing more. There has been no originality with COD since BO. Everything after BO has been pretty much a copy and paste of the previous titles with the only changes being maps, weapons (barely) and perks (barely except ghosts).

               

              It is not hard to see the repetitive and stale nature of the COD franchise. What is worse, the developers dont even act like they are interested in the problems these games have been having. Its like they only fix a certain number of things to meet their quota of "looking like they are doing something" just so people thinking they care but after the first few patches and updates, the devs are nowhere to be found anymore.

               

              What I am saying to have the originality without losing what COD really is. It is a military FPS game but if these companies keep making these game futuristic, then we will have a COD version of Halo.

                • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
                  iivrruummii

                  COD was never original.  Nothing hardly is anymore.  COD was released after MOH.  COD4 was basically just like Socom and Rainbow Six.  Nothing ever has been original.  The only thing original is how they present it.  AW is completely different game than Halo and Titanfall, based off of how they present it, even though the game has some of the same characteristics as other games, what make it COD, is how it feels.

                   

                  Either way if you don't like how the game is with the boost jump and other things, there is most likely going to be a bare bones type gamemode.

                   

                  You know what is funny, Halo Reach was an attempt to become more like COD, and it slowly started going downhill.  Now COD is becoming more like Halo, but the outcome will be either hit or miss.  I am buying it no matter what because it is COD, the same reason why I buy Forza, Halo, etc.  I enjoyed the previous games, so might as well try the next.

                   

                  AW is refreshing just like COD4 was.  I have high hopes for this game's multiplayer and hope that it can last me a good 1-3 months after I am done with Halo 2A/5's beta, ACU's Coop, and Destiny. 

                    • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
                      SitRepPro

                      Halo Reach tried copying COD?  Only played one match on it but it doesn't surprise me.  People like it for what it is.  Gears of War Judgment was criticised for the same and that flunked big time.  You initially couldn't use a rifle and a shotgun in combat, which is the silly restriction COD tries (admittedly Overkill overrides this but at a significant cost).

                    • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
                      SitRepPro

                      There are only so many ideas shooters can do.  If originality is such a big deal then why not highlight the game modes that COD borrows from others?  Let's see:

                       

                      Kill Confirmed is Greed from Unreal Tournament/Thief from Timesplitters

                      Search and Destroy, Demolition and Gun Game are from Counter Strike

                      Domination is from Unreal Tournament

                      War is Control Point from Half Life

                      Headquarters is Onslaught from Unreal Tournament

                      King of the Hill is from Unreal Tournament/Gears of War (at least with Gears it is the same developer mostly)

                       

                      Other shooters do the same too:

                       

                      Battlefield has Domination and incorporated the killcam feature in BF3/4 (forget which but it was not in BC2 it seems)

                      Halo's Grifball is Unreal Tournament's Bombing Run

                      Double jumping in Destiny is in Unreal Tournament

                      Crysis copied the tag collecting feature from Greed/Thief as above

                       

                      Oh and the perk system COD invented is just burrowing from RPG games.  The killstreaks, in their current form, appear to be original.  However, Black Ops 2 has titles showing off killing sprees, which were the killstreaks in Unreal Tournament.  I have the Mega Killer title in Black Ops 2 and, like its namesake in Unreal Tournament, they show off a multiple kill in quick succession.  The only difference is the kill requirement and the time limit, the idea is the same.

                  • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
                    ChestSplittah

                    The contract was based on Modern weapons and or time 2030ish to 2015 at the most. SH is going beyond into 2050ish... That, Sir..isn't modern. Black Ops 2 and Black Ops2  was 2025 and beyond. In all reality,  I don't know of anything in Black Ops gameplay that was innovative.

                    • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
                      nicedrewishfela

                      I understand your concerns, but it is a wait and see for me.

                       

                      People have complained about every CoD, But I have enjoyed each one, and for different reasons. I've been enjoying Ghosts as well.

                       

                      The challenge these Devs face is this; Keeping that CoD feel while bringing something new to the table. Add to that the Entitlement of this community where so many people want so many different things, and it is damn near impossible to make a game everyone is going to like anymore. They could release the second coming of COD4 and it wouldn't make this community happy at this point in time.

                       

                      Me? I am just going to wait and see on this one, but most likely I will end up getting it and enjoying it.

                      • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
                        Doc_Man123

                        First of all Advanced Warfare went into development before Titanfall so it's not like they are trying to copy Titanfall, Sledgehammer had the idea first.

                         

                        Second, this is not a recycled copy. Everyone complains that Call of Duty is the same every year yet when it finally changes up people complain because it's different and "not like Call of Duty anymore". It's redundant to complain about the game being the same recycled thing every year then complain that it's not the same anymore.

                         

                        People wanted something different, even you imply in your post that you wanted something different so when your given something different why is that so bad?

                         

                        Activision, the owners of the Call of Duty franchise wanted Sledgehammer to start developing also so that each company now has 3 years instead of 2 to develop the game. This is a good move especially now that next-gen is out and it will take longer to maximize the potential of the enhanced hardware.

                         

                        As for the future games thing that's strange. I never heard anything about Treyarch getting in trouble with Infinity Ward over making a futuristic game although I don't exactly follow the developers so I will believe you. Maybe it had to do with the fact that Black Ops 2 interferes with the timeline of the Modern Warfare series where as Advanced Warfare does not since it is much further into the future. It could also be that Infinity Ward has a closer relationship with Sledgehammer then Treyarch. Ultimately I don't think that is a reason to dislike Advanced Warfare.

                          • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
                            Bielsalmighty

                            AW was being developed before a game that came out first? You got a source to back that up?

                            • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
                              maccabi

                              Doc_Man123 wrote:

                               

                              First of all Advanced Warfare went into development before Titanfall so it's not like they are trying to copy Titanfall, Sledgehammer had the idea first.

                               

                               

                              completely mute point as that implies elements of games are copied only after a game comes out, titanfall was shown last year at E3.

                              Lets take the goliath scorestreak... its a huge mech that you call in.. it drops from the sky arrives in a cannister that you then open and then... you get an animation of climbing into the mech . it looks EXACTLY like getting getting into a titan. Even if they didnt take "inspiration" from Titanfall, I am surprised they didn't when seeing how similar the two things were think oh know what it looks identical to titanfall we should change this but they didn't.. so people will make that assumption whether or not its correct.

                               

                              The problem with Aw now is people are comparing the two games as they are similar, and this is a problem for Aw as the movement mechanics in Aw are no way near as refined as titanfalls .

                               

                               

                              Doc_Man123 wrote:

                               

                              Second, this is not a recycled copy. Everyone complains that Call of Duty is the same every year yet when it finally changes up people complain because it's different and "not like Call of Duty anymore". It's redundant to complain about the game being the same recycled thing every year then complain that it's not the same anymore.

                               

                              I completely agree with you here, but the issue I have now is after playing Aw my first thought was this doesn't feel like cod .

                               

                              Doc_Man123 wrote:

                               

                              People wanted something different, even you imply in your post that you wanted something different so when your given something different why is that so bad?

                               

                              when you have a massive popular franchise like cod you have a loyal playerbase who grew up with the game and expect certain fundamental aspects to remain as that is what made cod well cod. When you remove or change them so much that it doesnt feel like cod to people there is an issue. I've said this a lot recently but if Aw has done one thing it is that it has split the community as to what actually cod is. For me Aw is not cod.

                               

                               

                              Doc_Man123 wrote:

                               

                              Activision, the owners of the Call of Duty franchise wanted Sledgehammer to start developing also so that each company now has 3 years instead of 2 to develop the game. This is a good move especially now that next-gen is out and it will take longer to maximize the potential of the enhanced hardware.

                               

                              I agree the three year cycle is a good thing, but now we have an issue, Aw doesn't sit well within the cod universe and against its peers , do 3arc and iw now continue this new movement mechanic and pew pew theme pushing cod further into the realms of a sci fi shooter or go back to its roots as a grounded military shooter.?

                               

                              Doc_Man123 wrote:

                               

                              As for the future games thing that's strange. I never heard anything about Treyarch getting in trouble with Infinity Ward over making a futuristic game although I don't exactly follow the developers so I will believe you. Maybe it had to do with the fact that Black Ops 2 interferes with the timeline of the Modern Warfare series where as Advanced Warfare does not since it is much further into the future. It could also be that Infinity Ward has a closer relationship with Sledgehammer then Treyarch. Ultimately I don't think that is a reason to dislike Advanced Warfare.

                              This follows on from my last point.. people are going to like Aw some people arent, What will now happen as is always the case for cod is people will judge the current game on the previous one and in 3arcs case as they are up to bat next, people will see a grounded military shooter as a step backwards . I honestly don't think Aw should have been given the CoD moniker as it doesn't sit well, everything about it is to make people link old cod and this one from the name to the cod4 map .. If it was me i wouldve released the game as a stand alone or under a new cod title... but they havent as they know whacking cod in front of it will sell more copies 

                              • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
                                KTPhoenix

                                No you are wrong. After Activision fired west and zampella and later in the year after the lawsuit (which was before treyarch released their BO title), west and zampella founded Respawn Entertainment and then started brainstorming ideas over the next 2 years for Titanfall. Even over 2 years that is STILL before the development process for Advanced Warfare. Do your research first.

                                 

                                Second, I never said AW was "recycled". Along with your needing to do research i think you also need to learn to read. What i said was, AW was looking too futuristic like that of Halo and copying somewhat off of Titanfall. I also said that it wont be too long before they start recycling material for this franchise like MW3 and Ghosts did but in no way did i reference the original recycling that to AW.

                                 

                                I implied about ORIGINALITY. There is hardly any originality with COD anymore. I dont call "copying" (best term i can come up with) from another game "originality".

                                 

                                If that is the case then why did IW sue Trearch? Doesnt make sense that Activision would let that happen if they solely own the rights to COD.

                                 

                                Ok, im just going to stop here because you obviously dont know what you are talking about and have not really read any in depth information on this subject. Please read the articles concerning the lawsuits and the past CODs before you comment again.

                              • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
                                huntingnoluck

                                To the OP, you are entitled to your opinion. Sorry to hear about the way you feel, but I am not sure how you can have formed your opinions without having played it yet. If you don't like the futuristic story and feel of the game then don't buy it and don't play it. That is ok. I am excited for it and can't wait to try it, I will decide if it is a good game for me once I have tried it. A lot of people started playing fps's with Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem 3D or something like that so time frame and realism were never part of the fps genre. Even Wolfenstein had robots etc. It is ok, this is just games for entertainment, so I hear your voice, respect your opinion and good luck in the future.

                                • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
                                  Yppecaye_the_Dogged

                                  KTPhoenix wrote:

                                   

                                  I have 2 problems with this Advanced Warfare game. This first problem being that with just the trailer alone, it looks too much like Titanfall. You see soldiers hoping around with jetpack like uniforms and using weapons that are too futuristic.

                                   

                                  We won't know how the game is until we play it or see it in action.  However, like I mentioned in another thread, we don't expect absolute realism, but we expect CoD's relative realism.  What distinguishes CoD from other similar titles is that CoD has so far been a ground combat game, non-fantasy, non-over-the-top mechanics/wepaons/perks.  I can probably believe that soldiers in combat today might be using a target finder.  But I can't imagine, without some futuristic fantasizing, that they're boosting themselves around the combat field with a jet pack.

                                   

                                  Take a step back and picture how ridiculous this is.  I just LOLed in my own head picturing it.

                                   

                                  These games are starting to get too futuristic.

                                   

                                  What you said really is what it all boils down to:  trying to forever top the competition with more outrageous ideas.  Gotta make the game look cool for the little kiddies.

                                   

                                  That said, it is what it is.  But, like it has already happend with Ghosts in a big way, the discerning and intelligent consumer will just say "no thanks."

                                   

                                  Hopefully what some of you are saying about 3RC is true.  And we'll get a return to quintessential CoD gameplay at some point.

                                  • Re: Seriously doubt its worth getting
                                    RunAndGun1

                                    I always find it strange when people create threads like this months before a game is released. Yes, I too get a lot of impressions from videos released by devs prior to the game itself is released. To me, Ghosts looked promising for many reasons. The variety of map sizes and designs. But, the ridiculous lag and nearly instantaneous time to kill has made it unplayable to me. Yes, I'm on the XBox360, but that shouldn't matter. And my connection is three times the quality and speed compared to what I had when I played earlier CODs.

                                     

                                    Personally, I like what I see of AW so far. I like the boost jumping. I think that feature alone will force players to work harder for their kills. Some retard said that with the new movement players should die faster. An insipid level of reasoning if you ask me. If you make players die faster because of the new movement, then you've just negated the whole point of adding the movement to the game. So many COD players want easy kills. What? Work for your kills? Nooo wayyy.

                                     

                                    It was only a matter of time before COD had futuristic environments and mechanics. How else do you keep the game fresh by sticking to the same type of environments and settings title after title? If you don't make dramatic changes, you're just creating variations of the same theme. That sounds boring to me.