Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 14:13:31 GMT -5
I enjoyed Reznov as a character. Ninety-five percent of CoD characters would never go beyond a "nice shot" personality-wise, but if you killed enough Nazis in one fell swoop Reznov would laugh his ass off. Reznov was a cheesy character, but it was done on purpose. Some games do this to make their characters more memorable; often times it works. Reznov would repeat things, call the enemy rats, and most importantly he'd spout loads of exposition. He WaW he accurately impersonated Russia itself. In BO1 this slightly fell off, but he was still mostly the same character none-the-less.
On that same note the reason nobody else really matches that level of Charisma in the CoD series because the enemy doesn't often warrant that level of anger. Aside from Kevin Sassy as Jonathan Irons the bar is set really low. Some people would argue that less is more; that by having every character be a shell of a person you can make small bits of personality amplify better. I can understand that, but when every character in MoMiS's single player campaign does that; they stop being special.
Ghosts' SP was weird. When the Americans are somehow outrageously weaker than South America, you already killed my suspension of disbelief. It's just not happening. I know it's the future, but this is getting ridiculous. We're sooner to be invaded by Russia from the east than South America. Unless Bane is leading the invasion force I just can't take this seriously.
When a dog becomes the main focus of the game, and he somehow kills people instantly, don't tell me you're actually trying to tell a serious story. The internet does not find a dog with a go-pro threatening; they'll find it worthy of several thousand Imgur upvotes.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Jul 26, 2015 15:38:25 GMT -5
I also liked how they amplified the moral ambiguity by making him an Anti-hero in BO1. Sure he was all buddy buddy with Mason and got betrayed in the past. But he also brainwashed Mason into doing his dirty work and convincing Mason he was still real.
Also the whole "spelt out a secret message in the mission introductions saying 'Resnov is dead. Or is he? No body was ever found' " thing or whatever it said was a nice little easter egg.
And agree with Legit and Beaver never finished Ghosts because it was so boring and the suspension of disbelief was too much
|
|
|
Post by volgon on Jul 26, 2015 18:11:34 GMT -5
I couldn't even finish the Spoopy Ops:Ghost Doge campaign. I just got so bored that I just stopped playing and uninstalled. The real reason you didn't finish was because no FOV slider in SP zzzzzzzz
|
|
|
Post by LeGitBeeSting on Jul 26, 2015 20:44:28 GMT -5
I downloaded a FoV mod but don't tell Roberta Bowling otherwise I could get banned for life. Shhhhhh.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Jul 27, 2015 7:16:26 GMT -5
My campaign rankings, from a guy who loves campaigns (I play through them multiple times until I get all the Gamerscore from them):
1) Advanced Warfare 2) MW2 3) MW1 4) BO1 5) BO2 6) COD2 7) WaW 8) Ghosts 9) MW3
The original game and COD3 don't get ranked because I couldn't even finish them, they were so bad.
|
|
|
Post by hard1ine on Jul 27, 2015 7:51:04 GMT -5
And agree with Legit and Beaver never finished Ghosts because it was so boring and the suspension of disbelief was too much. And you didn't even see the ending. The main villain is hit almost directly by an orbital rail gun, is then shot in the chest from 10 feet away with a .44 Magnum, and is dropped to the bottom of a lake. He survives and immediately beats the shit out of two of the 1337 tacticool Ghost squad. I couldn't stop laughing. Worst campaign in the series by a mile.
|
|
banana
True Banana
Zoro > Law
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by banana on Jul 27, 2015 14:28:40 GMT -5
He's obv Goku in disguise
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Jul 28, 2015 16:00:04 GMT -5
And you didn't even see the ending. The ending is the best. Rorke is fucking Captain America. The man cannot be stopped. My interpretation is that Rorke is made of the same stuff as the protagonists, that is, he can take multiple bullets to the head, his health regenerates in five seconds, etc. Ghosts' campaign was improved by its spectacle: it's a long Michael Bay film. This isn't War and Peace. It's just war.
|
|
Usagi
True Bro
Grin and Barrett
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Usagi on Jul 28, 2015 21:41:26 GMT -5
Rorke is foxtrotting based.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2015 18:07:17 GMT -5
And we'll never see him again.
|
|
|
Post by otisman666 on Jul 30, 2015 11:41:11 GMT -5
My campaign rankings, from a guy who loves campaigns (I play through them multiple times until I get all the Gamerscore from them): 1) Advanced Warfare 2) MW2 3) MW1 4) BO1 5) BO2 6) COD2 7) WaW 8) Ghosts 9) MW3 The original game and COD3 don't get ranked because I couldn't even finish them, they were so bad. AW at the top? I played a few levels on the 360, so maybe my experience was different. It was really choppy, could clip through walls and was just all around bad in terms of game play. Couldn't tell you about the story, I really only played the first two levels and then just quit. Up until that point, I had pretty much completed all the campaigns in Vet mode (save MW3, it played the same way).
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Jul 30, 2015 18:20:25 GMT -5
Well, that's your fault for playing on last gen.
AW's campaign was quite enjoyable although the plot holes are painful (ex. why not just stab the guy? I mean, you have a knife).
|
|
PSIII
True Bro
Is a Contender
Posts: 275
|
Post by PSIII on Aug 1, 2015 2:20:23 GMT -5
They could do really well to double or triple the length of the campaign. Imagine how much better an outlook we'd have of each game if the campaign was more like other games (longer, full of secrets, upgrades, etc). I mean it seems like they are trying to do that in small baby steps each game, but somehow should just say fuck it and go all the way and make a real campaign, not just an obligatory part of the package just to have a poster child for the game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 15:31:09 GMT -5
They could do really well to double or triple the length of the campaign. Imagine how much better an outlook we'd have of each game if the campaign was more like other games (longer, full of secrets, upgrades, etc). I mean it seems like they are trying to do that in small baby steps each game, but somehow should just say Foxtrot it and go all the way and make a real campaign, not just an obligatory part of the package just to have a poster child for the game. I doubt length is the issue, especially when quality is a much bigger issue. It's not the story I have problems with either. Even the best movies look like janky, cheap soap operas on TV because not all the elements of a good movie experience are there. A lot of best game lore/stories out there resulted from having a great game with matching mechanics in the first place. While a 6-hour story has limits, there'd be no reason to move to 12-hour story unless there's a really good 12-hour story worth doing. When you look at the stories of heroes in general they often they start with humble beginnings. In the end they gain more powers that make sense in the context of the game and have the entire length of the campaign to master those things. It doesn't matter how long the game is, so long as it can play out this ramp-up and properly pay off in the end. Call of Duty doesn't follow that guide line. The story ramps up, but the mechanics dictate that nothing is really changing. When it introduces a new item it almost always discards it for the rest of the game after one use. Heavily-armored Spec Ops units somehow have the same health and behaviour as cartel thugs in casual clothing. Your character(s) end as powerful as they were in the beginning, and the same combat loop gets played a lot. If the game throws a nasty obstacle like an attack helicopter in your way it'll highlight a nearby Stinger for you and call it a game. The game can become boring and dead fast, and this dissonance between the story and the mechanics is a good reason to consider CoD's campaigns "objectively bad".
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Aug 1, 2015 16:10:05 GMT -5
Yeah, length isn't the issue. Portal 1 and 2 were incredibly short games, but they're widely heralded as great games. Why? Good mechanics, a great antagonist and a great story all set in a memorable setting.
CoD suffers from poor mechanics. You're given a primary and a secondary and some grenades, any pickups are either guns that are practically no different, or equipment only useful for one thing, like launchers against a vehicle.
Poor antagonists. The motivations are terrible, the personalities are usually forgettable. Irons and Menendez are the only possible exceptions and they're still pretty flat and dull.
The story is always the same. You're part of the elite, they start to investigate something only to uncover there's a larger conspiracy going on, Betrayal by someone and the bad guy gets away, but you still kill the secondary bad guy. Seriously, I just described every non WWII CoD. The only ones that stray from that is AW, maybe. MW3, the final game in the trilogy, and BO2, and even then it technically can end that way if you do the wrong things and who knows what, or if, BO3 will consider canon.
And the settings are boring and similar.
Doesn't matter if the campaign lasted 20 hours, it'd still be 20 hours of shit
|
|
PSIII
True Bro
Is a Contender
Posts: 275
|
Post by PSIII on Aug 1, 2015 20:04:11 GMT -5
I didn't mean the length was the only needed solution. It's a main factor, but would also need to have substance in it to be worth it.
Portal's a vastly different game though. A 40 hour romp wouldn't fit well (though would be pretty amusing for some). CoD's just a straight up FPS, so its campaign needs to be longer and fleshed out. Longer length would give them freedom to do more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2015 20:57:26 GMT -5
I wonder if people don't play the multiplayer because the single-player combat heavily differs from the multiplayer combat. Bots don't flank or sprint; they'd rather play a glorified game of peek-a-boo.
To be fair CoD doesn't really have a lot of things to distinguish it aesthetically. To its credit it recently has gone out of its way to splash more colour and refinement in its environments.
|
|
PSIII
True Bro
Is a Contender
Posts: 275
|
Post by PSIII on Aug 2, 2015 12:24:55 GMT -5
Well, they have three years now, so that gives them more time to work, right?!
By work I mean sit around and supply PR bullshit to fool us.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2015 13:19:21 GMT -5
I agree. There's an unholy number of constraints offered by the many features of CoD to make a story worth comparing to a game that prioritizes story. With a puzzle game like Portal the mechanics are modular with the rest of the package. The gates are left wide open for things like character development, world creation, and storyline.
Can we make worthwhile characters and stories in a world where most people are emotionally dead to function properly as soldiers? Can we run a restaurant with nothing but canned food?
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Aug 2, 2015 14:29:46 GMT -5
Can we run a restaurant with nothing but canned food? You definitely can
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Aug 3, 2015 14:40:00 GMT -5
Next Call of Duty should have demons and shit. Too outlandish? Have you seen the Nazi zombies?
No more firing at generic terrorists. Instead, you can shoot generic demons! That explode!
(Also, I want a Cyberdemon to replace the copter as a kill streak. Because that would be wicked sick. Also, also, the announcer should say WICKED SICK when you're on a kill streak.)
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Aug 3, 2015 14:50:37 GMT -5
Stop advertising Doom for Bethesda.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Aug 3, 2015 14:53:43 GMT -5
Serious post, responding to OP. How about attachments work like Battlefield in that each gun has different slots and you choose mutually exclusive attachments for each slot. However, unlike Battlefield, each attachment is a legitimate option due to opportunity cost. For example, irons ADS faster, but an ACOG has decreased sway and recoil. Extended mags increase capacity, but reload slower. Suppressors provide concealment, but reduce damage. Etc. Critically, attachments do not buff weapons. They only change the weapon. This also means you are even footing versus veteran players when using a new gun since it starts with the default attachments, which again are all viable. And then...move all weapon buffs to perks. So any attachment that simply improves a gun is now a perk. For example: Kick Stalker Sway Deep Impact Sleight of Hand Steady Aim Range Swap Speed Quick Draw Dexterity Etc. What does this accomplish? Weapon improvements are now perks and thus intrinsic to the character. They benefit both your guns on spawn and any guns you may acquire during your life. Other players that acquire your spawn weapons do not benefit from your weapon improvements. As a throwback to MW3, I'd call these "proficiencies" so as to differentiate them from "perks", which a la Black Ops 2 and AW, improve your character, not your guns. TL;DR: attachments change the flavor of guns and do not improve their core stats. Proficiencies increase their actual stats, at cost of class points. Competing attachments lets you do fun things like...a reduced magazine. Capacity x0.75x, reload time 0.5x. This isn't something that would be worth a class point, but when it's an option versus the normal mag (cap x1, reload x1) or extended (cap x1.5, reload x2), then it might be an interesting choice. Or how about a magazine that increases normal reload time, but greatly decreases empty reload time? You could have grips that increase first shot accuracy, but harm subsequent shots, etc. In as far as CoD is concerned, most guns would have three attachment slots: sight, barrel, magazine, and maybe grip. (I'm not sold on the grip idea.) Stop advertising Doom for Bethesda. You're not the boss of me.
|
|
probaddie
True Bro
You're triggering my intelligence
Posts: 11,043
|
Post by probaddie on Aug 3, 2015 16:49:06 GMT -5
Serious post, responding to OP. How about attachments work like Battlefield in that each gun has different slots and you choose mutually exclusive attachments for each slot. However, unlike Battlefield, each attachment is a legitimate option due to opportunity cost. For example, irons ADS faster, but an ACOG has decreased sway and recoil. Extended mags increase capacity, but reload slower. Suppressors provide concealment, but reduce damage. Etc. Critically, attachments do not buff weapons. They only change the weapon. This also means you are even footing versus veteran players when using a new gun since it starts with the default attachments, which again are all viable. And then...move all weapon buffs to perks. So any attachment that simply improves a gun is now a perk. For example: Kick Stalker Sway Deep Impact Sleight of Hand Steady Aim Range Swap Speed Quick Draw Dexterity Etc. What does this accomplish? Weapon improvements are now perks and thus intrinsic to the character. They benefit both your guns on spawn and any guns you may acquire during your life. Other players that acquire your spawn weapons do not benefit from your weapon improvements. As a throwback to MW3, I'd call these "proficiencies" so as to differentiate them from "perks", which a la Black Ops 2 and AW, improve your character, not your guns. TL;DR: attachments change the flavor of guns and do not improve their core stats. Proficiencies increase their actual stats, at cost of class points. Competing attachments lets you do fun things like...a reduced magazine. Capacity x0.75x, reload time 0.5x. This isn't something that would be worth a class point, but when it's an option versus the normal mag (cap x1, reload x1) or extended (cap x1.5, reload x2), then it might be an interesting choice. Or how about a magazine that increases normal reload time, but greatly decreases empty reload time? You could have grips that increase first shot accuracy, but harm subsequent shots, etc. In as far as CoD is concerned, most guns would have three attachment slots: sight, barrel, magazine, and maybe grip. (I'm not sold on the grip idea.) Stop advertising Doom for Bethesda. You're not the boss of me. I stopped reading the moment you put "work" and "Battlefield" in the same sentence - mainly to make this vacuous, snarky reply.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Aug 3, 2015 18:18:58 GMT -5
Or how about a magazine that increases normal reload time, but greatly decreases empty reload time? Just bring back the M1 Garand. But not for AW, that game sucks.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Aug 3, 2015 18:41:16 GMT -5
Just bring back the M1 Garand. But not for AW, that game sucks. I specifically thought of the Garand for that. Attachment name could be en bloc clip.
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Aug 14, 2015 13:50:26 GMT -5
Another idea: let players customize their appearances.
However, all costumes should have large swaths of neutral colored zones that become the relevant team colors in-game. It's absurd that we can no longer identify friend or foe except by the appearance of their name indicators.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Aug 14, 2015 14:49:03 GMT -5
^ This. CoD has officially moved away from modern military, add some team colors ffs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2015 0:41:58 GMT -5
Another thing- I get that Gideon wears the hat to stand out as a character, but how is he not visibly sweating from wearing that thing all day indoors?
|
|
|
Post by Megaqwerty on Aug 17, 2015 16:43:34 GMT -5
Another thing- I get that Gideon wears the hat to stand out as a character, but how is he not visibly sweating from wearing that thing all day indoors? Nuclear winter has made the whole world cold.
|
|