bradman
True Bro
token old guy
Posts: 1,178
|
Post by bradman on Mar 29, 2016 15:47:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lustindarkness on Mar 29, 2016 16:38:30 GMT -5
I have decided to completely ignore this rumor until we get some real concrete information.
|
|
Slick
True Bro
Taking the piss
Posts: 1,015
|
Post by Slick on Mar 29, 2016 17:28:51 GMT -5
The evidence is very compelling though. I have my doubts they're going to release Ghosts 2 and complete their "cliffhanger" in the campaign. I have no reason to doubt the rumor that Ghosts did very poorly in player retention after the 2nd dlc came out. I didn't verify the article publisher's claim that their source has been correctly predicting eventual Call of Duty content. Simply have no desire to. All a moot point though, I won't be fooled again. Anyone who doesn't think the random loot casino won't be back for "CoD2016"(Ghosts 2) is a dreamer. You buy this upcoming CoD, you get what you deserve. Now if you happened to enjoy dropping enormous amounts of cash into the random loot casino, more power to you; have fun in the Ghosts 2 casino. I'll be holding out for TF2 or something else my friends enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by illram on Mar 29, 2016 23:32:37 GMT -5
I've had fun just buying the regular, non season pass COD for quite a while now, plus ala carte DLC maps as I desire, and never paying for any of this supply drop crap. So unless they just totally turn this into some sort of pay to win nightmare I'll probably do the same vanilla pay as you go (for maps only, not this other BS) experience with the next installment.
|
|
|
Post by flatulentmonkeys on Mar 30, 2016 11:17:58 GMT -5
I've had fun just buying the regular, non season pass COD for quite a while now, plus ala carte DLC maps as I desire, and never paying for any of this supply drop crap. So unless they just totally turn this into some sort of pay to win nightmare I'll probably do the same vanilla pay as you go (for maps only, not this other BS) experience with the next installment. Same here. Until a new competitive FPS emerges (Battalion 1944 perhaps?), I'll stick with the vanilla COD. I don't need the DLC maps for competitive play, so I only buy a map pack if the reviews are really good.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Mar 30, 2016 11:50:09 GMT -5
You're probably better off anyway. I like Skyjacked with my KRM class, and sometimes tactical loitering on Splash is fun, but honestly the DLC maps aren't that great and they barely utilize wall running for the most part. Maybe Gauntlet is okay for ground war or objective games, but for regular old TDM it feels like the worst of both worlds since it's so big you have to hoof it to get back in action, but it's also very flank heavy so there's lots of cheap deaths and getting killed right out of or in your own respawn. Plus the spawns flip pretty regularly. Better to get away from the spawn ASAP in case of a flip and stick to the middle 3/4 of the map. If you're moving through spawn to change lanes, watch your back. There's also quite a few headglitch locations so despite being very flanky it can also punish you for trying to move quickly. I don't generally enjoy Gauntlet.
|
|
|
Post by Pope Leo VII on Mar 31, 2016 9:52:21 GMT -5
Actually excited for once for an upcoming release of the COD franchise.
Its clear at this point with the addition of the various exo movements, wall running, specialists, etc. that you have to embrace all these features and go balls to the wall and move away from the traditional model or go back to the way things were with the feet firmly planted on the ground and crazy movements
Enjoy both types of games, but come on make up your Foxtroting mind at this point. Its impossible to dabble between the two. Choose one side of the spectrum already
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Mar 31, 2016 10:01:04 GMT -5
Actually I kinda hope CoD will fluctuate between the two. I do enjoy the wallrunning and stuff, but I also enjoyed the simpler movement in MW2 just fine and I kinda like the idea of at least one of the studios, or some of the games, keeping it a bit more traditional... Although, I have my doubts they will. It seems like wallrunning and superjumps are the new norm for CoD and leaving them out might seem like a step backwards... at least to their marketing departments and bean counters.
|
|
Usagi
True Bro
Grin and Barrett
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Usagi on Mar 31, 2016 23:04:13 GMT -5
Not having specialists would really suck, I hope they come back but I doubt they will.
|
|
Gamma
True Bro
Posts: 127
|
Post by Gamma on Apr 2, 2016 2:11:52 GMT -5
Not having specialists would really suck, I hope they come back but I doubt they will. I truly wouldn't mind if they were left out. I hope the specialist streak option from MW3 returns
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Apr 2, 2016 2:59:42 GMT -5
TITANFALL 2 BABY ALL DAY E'ERY DAY
|
|
bradman
True Bro
token old guy
Posts: 1,178
|
Post by bradman on Apr 2, 2016 11:27:45 GMT -5
Not having an Xbone, I'm very interested in trying the sequel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2016 13:01:56 GMT -5
I don't mind sci-fi; I mind bad sci-fi. While Titanfall hasn't really nailed down anything that interesting in their world they're at least completely disconnected from our present-day world. Titanfall has creative CoD no longer has. Can China be a bad guy for once in Call of Duty? Too politically incorrect. Can the USA lose? Politically incorrect. Can we have one villain to point that we can point to and say "that's the franchise's iconic villain". Yes, except we don't do WW2 shooters anymore and the Modern Warfare franchise wrapped up a long time ago. Maybe the Black Ops franchise is okay, but even then it gets weird. Like, when this is in a game where the campaign includes a guy literally getting ripped limb from limb by robots you have a serious disconnect in tone. <-- And honestly I think this should be the sort of thing going into the campaigns if you're doing a one-shot campaign.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Apr 2, 2016 22:48:15 GMT -5
BO3 definitely has a problem with tone. Everything from the stupid neon colored "camo's" to the sill dance animations, to the fact that both sides just look the same in multiplayer now and making silly wrenches and swords somewhat serious weapons... But then, CoD jumped the shark a long time ago...
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Apr 3, 2016 13:51:51 GMT -5
I don't mind sci-fi; I mind bad sci-fi. While Titanfall hasn't really nailed down anything that interesting in their world they're at least completely disconnected from our present-day world. Titanfall has creative CoD no longer has. Can China be a bad guy for once in Call of Duty? Too politically incorrect. Can the USA lose? Politically incorrect. Can we have one villain to point that we can point to and say "that's the franchise's iconic villain". Yes, except we don't do WW2 shooters anymore and the Modern Warfare franchise wrapped up a long time ago. Maybe the Black Ops franchise is okay, but even then it gets weird. Like, when this is in a game where the campaign includes a guy literally getting ripped limb from limb by robots you have a serious disconnect in tone. <-- And honestly I think this should be the sort of thing going into the campaigns if you're doing a one-shot campaign. But...China was a possible enemy in the BO2 campaign? And the US could "lose" too. As for iconic villains, I mean, Menendez was pretty good. I guess you could say Makarov as well.
|
|
|
Post by kylet357 on Apr 3, 2016 13:55:59 GMT -5
I don't see the issue with these things. The developers added them in for people to have fun. And the game is made for people to have fun.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Apr 3, 2016 18:50:29 GMT -5
Some fun breaks other fun. Honestly if I really wanted over the top silly stuff it wouldn't have taken me years and years to play Team Fortress 2. I was originally super excited for that game until they went cartoony and that mostly spoiled it for me. Can it be fun, sure. But honestly I prefer a grittier setting that feels more immersive. More The Dark Knight than Batman and Robin, to compare to Batman movies. Sure silly has it's place... that's what comedies are for, and if they want to make CoD a comedy shooter then okay. But I'm prolly out. If it's going to be that kind of silly I'd just assume go all the way and go play Splatoon or something where that sort of thing is a more natural fit.
Of course this also comes down to personal preferences. If you don't mind it, then more power to you. Personally it kills some of my enjoyment to have this silly stuff. In fact to be totally honest I don't really care for the simulation stuff either like the new Nuketown. I want to be playing a game that's about a battle not about a soldier who's also playing a game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2016 19:47:19 GMT -5
Eh... okay, I didn't think my examples through thoroughly enough. Still, my point remains that Titanfall has more creative freedom for having two factions that have no basis in nationality. I guess CoD got away with it by having "THIS rogue group is making trouble!", and it never really picked on any nation in particular. I don't see the issue with these things. The developers added them in for people to have fun. And the game is made for people to have fun. Erm- what? Tone functions to set the mood and uphold the theme and setting, fun is just one of many possible moods set by the tone in conjunction with everything else in the game. It's possible for a game to not be fun and still remain successful for being compelling in a given way. Call of Duty is weird like that. First zombies turned tongue-and-cheek quickly. Now the multiplayer is experiencing the wackiness. But the campaign is trying to be blood-soaked and terrifying. We went from Gaz saying "I like to keep this shotgun for close encounters" to some guy ripping out a device attached to his spinal chord by hand. Then again, I digress. There's the argument that each mode in CoD is designed for a completely different demographic, so whatever.
|
|
|
Post by dpkaufman on Apr 4, 2016 8:45:16 GMT -5
I enjoy a more realistic tone towards the beginning of the game's cycle while everything's fresh, and then throwing in more goofy fun stuff halfway through when the game starts getting stale. For me, Treyarch's timing has been pretty good so far.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Apr 4, 2016 9:37:50 GMT -5
For me it just pushes me out the door. I don't view silly stuff as "fun". Running around shooting people and being a badass is fun. Maybe something silly here and there, but I prefer when that comes more from the players doing something silly and stupid than having silly slapstick humor put right into the game. At least when a game has a nice fairly serious tone to it. If it's already silly from the start I don't care as much. (Although I also don't play very many games that are silly...)
Personal preference here, but I'm just not a fan of a game changing it's tone over it's lifecycle. I'd prefer it set the tone early on and stick with it.
In honesty I'd love an even more serious multiplayer tone. I think that's one thing I like so much about Titanfall. It doesn't break the immersion as much as CoD. You still have spawning and spawn flips... But at least the games start with you coming in off a dropship and then the losing team trying to bug out on one. Plus if your titan is up and you die you can use it to drop in rather than respawning normally. I wish they'd completely do away with the magic respawns in favor of dropships, drop pods, and the like. The campaign also added some kinda cool stuff, though it wasn't very well executed. The cinematics were pretty damn cool, but the constant radio chatter trying to tell you some generic military story while you're in the middle of a battle was too hard to follow. I also kinda like how the Battlefield games make you feel like there's a battle going on in this big map and you're a part of it.
BO3 is fun, but it doesn't feel like a battle. It feels like we're playing tag football with guns. Like we're not so much soldiers as athletes competing in some weird future sport. That's okay I guess. I mean there are games where that is literally the premise of the game... on the other hand, I don't play those games. I don't usually like playing a game of a game. If everything is supposed to be a simulation or a sport or something then it sort of trivializes it for me in the same way a story gets trivialized if the main character wakes up at the end and the whole thing was a dream. I don't like it.
Oh well, I don't really care. The tone in BO3 is already not super serious I guess with all these neon colored camos and silly animations so I don't suppose I really give a fuck. By that I mean I'm already out of the game as far as tone and atmosphere... it's crap. BO3 is the exact opposite of the new Battlefront. Battlefront is a game I play all for the atmosphere and the joy of being in the Star Wars universe for a little while as a grunt on the front lines of the rebellion. But the gameplay is a bit meh. BO3 is fun because the mechanics are mostly pretty good, but the setting is already kinda bland and on top of that it doesn't take it's own setting seriously which just makes it even more bleh. Once I'm done with BO3 I'll probably never play it again, but I might keep coming back to Battlefront from time to time just to be in Star Wars for a bit even if I've put fewer hours into it right now. By contrast I felt like Titanfall worked on both levels. The setting was kinda interesting and I wanted to see more of it.
I haven't even played more than the first mission in BO3. I got to the simulation stuff and got bored of SP. Ho hum my character blew away another simulated character again... We've had a lot of training maps in CoD games where you go through an obstacle course and the game gives you a tutorial, but it seems like they really want to push all this simulation stuff in BO3. meh... It's not the Matrix. What makes the Matrix setting work is even though everything is a simulation it's also where all the people in it live their lives and the people fighting against it don't have control over the whole thing... they're trying to break its the rules. This stuff in BO3 is just training simulations and it bored me to tears. I should go power through it and try to get to the actual fighting in the game... assuming there is any after the first mission. But, I just can't be arsed. Rather go shoot other players in the face. ;3
I suppose I can be fickle, but I like what I like and don't like other stuff... that's just how it is. Still... I hope they don't get much sillier with BO3 while I'm still playing it. I definitely feel like the game is circling the drain, though. Every patch seems to push me further away from it... I hope this next DLC at least is good, because I would like to get it and have some new maps... if for nothing else than to dilute the maps from the first DLC... heh (I kinda regret getting the first DLC... except for Skyjacked. I love Skyjacked with my KRM+Gungho class. Rise is somewhat okay but dull, Splash is boring but camp-able, and Gauntlet is full blown AIDs...)
|
|
banana
True Banana
Zoro > Law
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by banana on Apr 4, 2016 10:14:14 GMT -5
I don't care about "tone", "realism", or any of that gamer talk
As long as the maps and gun balance are good I don't care where it's set. It could be in a rainbow pony ice cream wonderland for all I care lmao
|
|
|
Post by dpkaufman on Apr 5, 2016 7:55:52 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm with banana.
"Weird future sport" is exactly what I'm looking for. If the decoration can be immersive or interesting that's bonus.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Apr 5, 2016 8:46:31 GMT -5
Yeah I'm the opposite. I want something interesting and immersive to keep me interested not just good mechanics. Otherwise I'd have given Monday Night Combat more of a chance rather than yawning at it.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled Jigglypuff on Apr 5, 2016 9:50:24 GMT -5
That's it. I'm tired of waiting. I say we DEMAND a Call of Duty: Civil Warfare!
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Apr 5, 2016 10:31:24 GMT -5
Yay 10 second load times and sitting in firing lines! ;3
I find myself wishing Treyarch had done what I thought they were going to when the first BO came out and keep the series in the recent past. They totally could have done the 60's, then 70's, then the 80's. Each would have had it's own flavor and been distinct enough to keep them from getting old. Instead we kinda Sci-Fi saturation with all three CoD devs going Sci-Fi.
I don't think there are all that many historical conflicts that would really capture people's imagination since the Vietnam and Korean conflicts are kinda unpopular. Iraq and Afghanistan have already more or less been covered and are both kinda old and unpopular now as well. To be honest the only war I can think of that people really still romanticize is WWII. We all got pretty burned out on WWII games for a good while, but maybe it's around time for a return to that.
I don't know if the "modern" timeline is really fully played out yet either. We got a bit saturated with it given that both CoD and Battlefield went modern, but I think there's still room there. People definitely appreciate the games featuring weapons and hardware they can identify from real life and kinda nerd out over. The scifi stuff mostly lacks that. Unfortunatley the MW series kinda painted themselves into a corner in CoD with their attempts at constantly one upping themselves with each MW game. I think any new "modern" CoD would have to be a completely different timeline... again. Honestly I don't know how many timelines there are, at the very least I think each studio has their own continuity and as far as I know Ghosts happens in it's own as well. It's like the DC multiverse. ;p
|
|
|
Post by lustindarkness on Apr 5, 2016 10:56:37 GMT -5
I personally would love a well done balanced boots on the ground realistic MW continuation. And to dream on I would gladly pay for DLC maps as long as there is no stupid microtransactions.
At the same time, I understand that the idea of making a game is to make money and I'm not sure the above would make them that money. So I can live with a well done balanced game in whatever setting. Hell, BO3 was excellent in my mind until the introduction of shit greedy microtransactions.
|
|
|
Post by illram on Apr 5, 2016 11:40:26 GMT -5
Thing is, all the jumping and sliding are now features. My guess is Activision wouldn't OK a new game that goes "backwards" in that regard. So going back in time for a more rudimentary military shooter seems difficult to imagine, sadly.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on Apr 5, 2016 12:03:27 GMT -5
Again they've painted themselves into a corner. Instead of letting each studio have a specialty they're pushing them all to be more the same and watering down the game as a whole.
Although, personally I think you still could do a modern shooter without necessarily going backwards on movement. You don't have to make movement superhuman to be more dynamic, just ditch the current norm where you essentially pilot an invisible box or cylinder that looks like a person with some canned animations. Go for something that's actually kinda different and more dynamic and simultaneously more human. Of course that would take innovation and completely redoing the animation system, so it's not bloody likely... at least not in CoD. But I think it could definitely be done. Modern shooters don't come anywhere close to modeling the range of human movement.
Sure wallrunning, sliding, and jumping way up high can be cool, but I don't think it's that specifically that makes the new movement systems popular. I think it's that it's more dynamic. There's more to do, and more interaction with the environment. Players want to be more engaged, to have more choices than just run and shoot. It's not the 90's, circle-strafing is no longer an advanced technique.
I know they are pretty risk averse, but really there's only so many times they can repeat this slide/wallrun sci-fi thing and I think a lot of us are getting hungry fro a modern or even WWII setting at this point and a bit burned out on sci-fi.
Plus they have three studios now. Let one of them take some risks...
|
|