|
Post by GodMars on May 23, 2016 22:06:28 GMT -5
It's the best the game engine has ever run Yeah, crashing every other game and not being able to get solid 60 FPS with a $5000 rig while still looking like a Wii game was a very impressive technical accomplishment. No way to knock that. People still play CoD on PC?
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on May 23, 2016 22:30:57 GMT -5
Ghosts had more maps, killstreaks, weapons, and perks than any other COD. It was the last COD with original killstreaks, the last without paid RNG. It had the best networking, the best hit detection, despite being the most segmented by platform of any of the releases. The party system actually worked. Even little UI things were better - the minimap was bigger and showed multiple levels, the scoreboard was better, etc. They finally got the perk system right. The guns and perks were more balanced than in any other COD. You can nitpick here or there, but there really isn't much to complain about with the Ghosts multiplayer. I understand that for many of you, nothing will ever match COD4 or MW2, but Ghosts was legitimately great.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on May 24, 2016 0:06:10 GMT -5
The maps and spawns were terrible in Ghosts. Which was more than enough to make me not like it. Though at this rate I'd rather have Ghosts 2 than AW, BO3 or IW.
|
|
bradman
True Bro
token old guy
Posts: 1,178
|
Post by bradman on May 24, 2016 4:48:41 GMT -5
Dudebros hated Ghosts because the map sizes made it "campy" and the hit detection made them dead too quickly. Gotta hand it to Activision,they listened to their core audience. Enter SpaceCoD, the video game.
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on May 24, 2016 5:53:09 GMT -5
The maps and spawns were terrible in Ghosts. Which was more than enough to make me not like it. Though at this rate I'd rather have Ghosts 2 than AW, BO3 or IW. The spawns did suck
|
|
|
Post by lustindarkness on May 24, 2016 6:58:49 GMT -5
I do remember having to adapt to Ghost tactical loitering. I got pretty good at it too. LOL
I have hopes the new IW game will be good enough that I don't just play MW Remastered.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 24, 2016 8:59:56 GMT -5
My only problem with Ghosts was the FPS lag spikes on PC. I only played about 3 matches on a free weekend and even the good games weren't fun because of it. Pretty much as soon as anybody started shooting the FPS would crater. I didn't play enough to judge anything else about the game and never played it on console.
|
|
banana
True Banana
Zoro > Law
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by banana on May 24, 2016 10:05:39 GMT -5
Ghosts had more maps, killstreaks, weapons, and perks than any other COD. It was the last COD with original killstreaks, the last without paid RNG. It had the best networking, the best hit detection, despite being the most segmented by platform of any of the releases. The party system actually worked. Even little UI things were better - the minimap was bigger and showed multiple levels, the scoreboard was better, etc. They finally got the perk system right. The guns and perks were more balanced than in any other COD. You can nitpick here or there, but there really isn't much to complain about with the Ghosts multiplayer. I understand that for many of you, nothing will ever match COD4 or MW2, but Ghosts was legitimately great. The maps were way too big for me
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 24, 2016 10:14:25 GMT -5
That may be more a problem of the spawns. With good spawns even a big map can have lots of action. MW2 had some big maps too and they mostly played alright as long as you didn't have half your team trying to lay down in a corner in their ghillie suits. Red Dead Redemption had some game modes that worked more or less like CoD TDM and that was handled mostly through spawning as well considering they actually took place on existing places in the open world map rather than on discrete maps.
Of course CoD has it's 2 spawn zone philosophy practically written in stone so it's harder to get around that. MW2 seemed a bit more fluid with the spawn zones.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on May 24, 2016 11:06:16 GMT -5
I didn't mind Ghosts to be honest. The maps aren't the size of Noobtown, perks were measured on a cost basis that reflects their strength, and for the ADHD rushers that constantly voted for Nuketown 24/7 in Black Ops 2 have Cranked for their fix. Probably the last COD game I have played where I felt that sniping wasn't the total niche/'joke class' given the fast time to kill in COD generally.
|
|
|
Post by UrbaneVirtuoso on May 24, 2016 11:09:54 GMT -5
Whenever Ghosts comes to mind I'm then reminded of Stonehaven, and Commando-lunge dogs.
Never again.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on May 24, 2016 12:12:58 GMT -5
I liked Stonehaven.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on May 24, 2016 13:30:42 GMT -5
While I'm not going to tell you Ghosts was the best COD in terms of maps, it definitely wasn't the worst. Everyone points out the clunkers, but everyone seemed to enjoy Octane, Freight, Strikezone, and Warhawk.
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on May 24, 2016 13:56:40 GMT -5
While I'm not going to tell you Ghosts was the best COD in terms of maps, it definitely wasn't the worst. Everyone points out the clunkers, but everyone seemed to enjoy Octane, Freight, Strikezone, and Warhawk. Stonehaven was a very easy map to spawn trap on. Nothing but good memories there for me.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on May 24, 2016 19:18:27 GMT -5
While I'm not going to tell you Ghosts was the best COD in terms of maps, it definitely wasn't the worst. Everyone points out the clunkers, but everyone seemed to enjoy Octane, Freight, Strikezone, and Warhawk. No, they were some of the worst. Literally only ones I liked were Stonehaven, Freight and Octane. In fact the only game with worse maps off the top of my head is AW.
|
|
bradman
True Bro
token old guy
Posts: 1,178
|
Post by bradman on May 24, 2016 20:32:31 GMT -5
You should add BO3; awful maps across the board.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on May 24, 2016 20:51:24 GMT -5
Infinityward made some great maps in their most recent game, Titanfall.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on May 24, 2016 21:27:08 GMT -5
You should add BO3; awful maps across the board. BO3 maps are still better than Ghosts and AW.
|
|
|
Post by illram on May 24, 2016 21:48:43 GMT -5
BO3 maps are mostly fine even if they're all sort of cookie cutter.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 25, 2016 1:52:33 GMT -5
BO3 maps are mostly fine even if they're all sort of cookie cutter. Mostly this. Though I really hate Nuketown in BO3. I think it kinda worked in BO1, but it's just annoying in 3. I do actually like Skyjacked even though it's a rehash, though. Of course I always go shotgun and stick to interiors on it. ;3 Some of the maps really underutilize the movement stuff or unnecessarily hamper it. Honestly this game has killbrushes, clipbrushes, and out of bounds areas EVERYWHERE! It's actually quite annoying, especially when you're wallrunning on a perfectly good wall that's about 10 feet tall and only about 3 feet of it are usable with no clear delineation letting you know where you'll autosuicide. On top of that some maps just don't provide much you can do since much of them feature either geometry too complex to wallrun or walls that just literally won't let you do it, especially the first DLC. Second DLC kinda makes up for it. Rise manages to be more or less non symmetrical and different, but also really dull with little in good parkour routes. Gauntlet is just annoying as hell, at least for TDM. All the routes are really long and spread out, but it's super flanky so you get shot in the back and spawn flipped all the time despite it being big. Metro is smaller, but also super flanky and offers next to nowhere safe you can point your back. Having said that I really like Breach. Combine is boring, but I do okay on it usually so I don't mind it too much. The spawn flipping is bad on it, though. I kinda enjoy Hunted, but I just play it like I used to play Estate back in MW2. In other words I try to take over and hold the house like it's some objective or something. Really irritating when the other team takes it and my team isn't helping me clear them out, but then it's my own personal objective so I can't really blame them too much. Still, if you cede the house in that map you're giving up. I do the same with the middle camp room in Splash. It's kinda pretty, but mostly I find it dull due to lack of wall run routes... seriously there's almost nowhere it's actually useful to wallrun there. Aquarium is fun. It's pretty well rounded, and I like the long flank routes, because they stabilize the spawn flipping and flanking a bit. (To be honest I feel like flanking is too easy. You literally just pick a side route and if you don't meed an enemy flanker on the way you win a flank. Anybody not flanking is getting flanked on most maps. If you want to hold an area you have to have someone keep checking the back door even if it's your own spawn because you'll not only get flanked, but the spawn will flip even with several of you holding the adjacent territory. But there's nowhere else to defend. I have really enjoyed two of the latest new maps a lot for being major parkour compatible. The Japanese one has random frame drops for me though... I'm not a huge fan of redwood. Not being able to take out enemy UAVs kinda bothers me so I just stick to a stealth class on that map. Tree parkour totally doable, but not easy. I guess I'm just not a fan of the design philosophy most of these maps adhere to. Like nearly all of them have a middle route that consists of a spawn, defense area, middle arena, defense area, and spawn, then a flanking route on either side and a few connections between the routes in the middleish areas. Spawns are dangerous because even if you're IN the spawn if you so much as turn your back you'll likely get enemies spawning in behind you. If you defend in the nearby defensive area you're pretty much guaranteed the spawns will flip and you'll have 3 or 4 coming in from behind together, good luck. I dunno... Some fun, still, but mostly boring map design. Oh well. CoD map design could really use some new ideas, but I'm not counting on seeing much innovation. I'll just have to keep doing what I do. When Titanfall 2 rolls around hopefully they will maintain the excellent map design they displayed in the first one. Srsly good... especially the DLC maps. Of course that's also a very different game... a better one. ;p
|
|
|
Post by illram on May 25, 2016 2:15:08 GMT -5
In a game where every map has to play to 5 billion gametypes you really have to design a balanced "everyone gets a turn" type map. Blandness is baked in. For what it's worth though when you run down the map list I really don't see anything "bad" except for DLC 1. DLC 2 is pretty good IMHO. Breach: awesome Fringe: awesome Infection: awesome Stronghold: fun Combine: fun Aquarium: fun Hunted: fun Evac: OK Exodus: OK Redwood: OK Metro: OK Nuketown: KILL ME NOW
DLC 1: Gauntlet: lame Splash: Pretty but just OK Rise: actually growing on me to where I now think this might be the best of DLC 1 Skyjacked: Does the world need this map? No, it does not.
DLC 2: Verge: fun Spire: fun Rift: meh Knockout: fun
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on May 25, 2016 6:07:30 GMT -5
Great, everyone likes the BO3 maps. Now how about its shitty netcode and hit detection? Does that feel next-gen to anyone? No, it's quite the opposite. Ghosts offered a superior product in that regard, which is at the core of the multiplayer experience. Stripping the game titles away, I don't think too many FPS players would choose mediocre performance with good level design over good performance with mediocre level design.
|
|
|
Post by lustindarkness on May 25, 2016 7:05:35 GMT -5
I finally found a class that works for me on Nuketown2025 or whatever it's called. An overkill class of a silenced shotgun and a silenced sniper rifle or some other long range weapon. Camp with the sniper until I have to run around and defend my house with the shotgun. Repeat the next life. I never cross the map myself. Dead silence and awareness a must.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 25, 2016 7:38:55 GMT -5
I mostly just strap on an LMG for Nuketown, toss out a trophy, and post up next to one of the houses until the spawns flip or I get flanked.
As for netcode I haven't had too many problems. Occasionally I get dumped out of a game or there's 1 guy lagging all over the place, but then for all I know he's in India or something or deliberately hosing his bandwidth for some reason. *shrug* I've only been laggy on a few rare occasions and they were all pretty much due to the host. I haven't seen much in the way of host migrations, though. I feel like I should see that more and getting dumped less. I can't speak to Ghosts, though. Maybe it was always super silky smooth for all I know. I'd still rank BO3 acceptable in this regard, at least for me on PS4 it has been.
As for hit detection, I really got no complaints there. I honestly always find this a strange complaint. I think what people are complaining about must actually be lag related. I have my doubts that any one CoD title is somehow incapable of accurately detecting when a hitscan intersects a hitbox.
|
|
|
Post by lustindarkness on May 25, 2016 8:45:04 GMT -5
Yeah, only time I have a problem with BO3 is if my daughter is Minecrafting (which is often) or the once in a while disconnect. The real lag for me is between my eyes and ears and my hands.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on May 25, 2016 8:50:37 GMT -5
Great, everyone likes the BO3 maps. Now how about its shitty netcode and hit detection? Does that feel next-gen to anyone? No, it's quite the opposite. Ghosts offered a superior product in that regard, which is at the core of the multiplayer experience. Stripping the game titles away, I don't think too many FPS players would choose mediocre performance with good level design over good performance with mediocre level design. I would choose the former. I can deal with mediocre performance if maps and spawns are good. BO3 has way more than just bad performance going against it. BO1 is still one of my favorite CoDs today because you can work through the performance issues. You can't work through terrible spawns and map design. Especially when the spawn logic is "spawn directly in front of an enemy" which is what made AW and Ghosts unplayable. Sure Ghosts could be good if you had a full clan that could manipulate the spawns, but that's not fun for me. If the enemy doesn't stand a chance to fight back you might as well be playing against bots on easy mode. And to be on the receiving end is even worse, that's why I hated Warhawk. Every domination game came down to playing against a clan and instantly killing you as you spawn. Fuck Ghosts.
|
|
|
Post by TheHawkNY on May 25, 2016 9:20:02 GMT -5
It's sometimes hard to evaluate the maps outside of other parts of the game. For instance, in AW, I couldn't tell you whether it's the maps that are bad, or it's just that everything else was a steaming turd. I wouldn't put the maps in the top 5 issues with that game though.
I've said this here before, but BO2 had the worst maps in the series. Your character could run for 3 steps without getting exhausted, yet it was as if they didn't factor that in at all with the map design. The most popular map was Hijacked, which I don't think anyone on here will say was a good map. The other three maps people wanted to play were Raid, Slums, and Standoff. Those maps weren't that great, to be honest. Meanwhile, the game had quite the selection of maps that were simply atrocious. Don't complain about Stonehaven, because at least it's not Aftermath.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on May 25, 2016 9:47:23 GMT -5
BO2 had some of the best maps, and the DLC were even better.
|
|
mannon
True Bro
wordy bastard PSN:mannonc Steam:mannonc XB:BADmannon
Posts: 15,371
|
Post by mannon on May 25, 2016 10:48:09 GMT -5
I didn't play that much BO2. I liked Hotel. ;3 (Guess that was BO1... I don't remember any BO2 maps then... heh)
I personally was NOT a fan of BO1 maps. There were a couple that I felt were better than others, but they really did make the maps super flanky twisty turny and messy as hell with everything but the NOPE sink thrown all over the place. BO3 probably isn't much better, but now I'm somewhat used to it. I still miss the cleaner MW era maps. It was easier to identify targets without junk and hedglitches all over the place. The maps still looked worn and wartorn, they just weren't so gosh darn golly gee whiz messy.
|
|
wings
True Bro
Posts: 3,776
|
Post by wings on May 25, 2016 12:26:03 GMT -5
Especially when the spawn logic is "spawn directly in front of an enemy" which is what made AW and Ghosts unplayable. Sure Ghosts could be good if you had a full clan that could manipulate the spawns, but that's not fun for me. If the enemy doesn't stand a chance to fight back you might as well be playing against bots on easy mode. And to be on the receiving end is even worse, that's why I hated Warhawk. Every domination game came down to playing against a clan and instantly killing you as you spawn. Foxtrot Ghosts. Some of this is self-inflicted by a portion of the Community who can't stand not shooting their gun for more than five seconds after respawn. While getting rolled by a premade fireteam can be frustating, I'm sure the developers could take this into account with their SBMM algorithm. Obviously SBMM isn't perfect but a lot of games in Destiny I've had are close, although if you're playing a in a team-based game mode it should probably be expected to face premade fireteams. Was there no Mercenary playlist in Ghosts? I guess with spawning, you could spawn invisible for five seconds and you are unable to use any guns in the mean time to allow safe entry on to a map.
|
|