New Call of Duty confirmed for Q4 2013

[SPMovies]

The series has dropped significantly after CoD4, WaW was a good game, but without camos/real attachments like CoD4, it wasn't the right time. MW2 was the greatest disappointment ever, and was a horrific sequel to one of the greatest games ever, starting the downfall of the franchise. MW3 was solid, but the franchise is just too overplayed now. Would do them a lot of good to work on a game for 3-4 years, make it amazing, and just let everyone relax without a new game every year.

[BullworthAcademy]

 

The series has dropped significantly after CoD4, WaW was a good game, but without camos/real attachments like CoD4, it wasn't the right time. MW2 was the greatest disappointment ever, and was a horrific sequel to one of the greatest games ever, starting the downfall of the franchise. MW3 was solid, but the franchise is just too overplayed now. Would do them a lot of good to work on a game for 3-4 years, make it amazing, and just let everyone relax without a new game every year.

Huh?

To me, MW2 was the start of the Multiplayer greatness and possibly the best CoD.

[Shogun Of Japan]

The series has dropped significantly after CoD4, WaW was a good game, but without camos/real attachments like CoD4, it wasn't the right time. MW2 was the greatest disappointment ever, and was a horrific sequel to one of the greatest games ever, starting the downfall of the franchise. MW3 was solid, but the franchise is just too overplayed now. Would do them a lot of good to work on a game for 3-4 years, make it amazing, and just let everyone relax without a new game every year.

That's your opinion, because I've been seeing many different things people say. I agree that MW3 is good tho, but MW2 is still good cause of the Third Person mode in MP.

[Tchuck]

Sakuya is right.

I hate how people bash CoD when FIFA is much worse.

How would you expect FIFA to change every year?

The answer is not to think like EA and not release one every year. FIFA could be released every 4 years with them only giving us transfers updates until the next one is released. That way they could actually have time to make some significant changes instead of feeding us sh*te year on year.

 

Same goes for CoD.

But Konami does it as well, why don't they get bashed?

 

Are you a FIFA player? Do you know how FIFA changes every year? It's not just about new content, it's about different mechanics, different ways of improving the playability of the game, changes to the engine, changes to how things are presented, better techniques, better technology. Players do not want just transfer updates, otherwise they wouldn't be yearly releases. EA can make a FIFA game every year, and every year it brings in tons of money while also becoming a better game. Why should they stop doing that? What would they do with all their staff? They're not in huge crunches to release the game every year.

 

Yearly iterations means they can upgrade the game one step at a time, as well as fix problems that come up with it. Say FIFA is released every 4 years. People buy it. They don't like the way the dribbling works. EA listens to it. They want to change. But it's not a change that can be patched in without serious modifications to the engine. So everyone will have to wait 4 years until the next release. 4 years comes along, the dribbling is good, but now the free-kick system is kind of broken, because the designers decided to come up with a new way for it. People complain, EA listens. But again, 4 years to wait until the next release. They can do yearly titles, the majority of players welcome the yearly titles, it's good for EA, it's good for the staff, it's good for the gamers. Hence, it's done.

 

On CoD, they release one every year because they can, because the players want it, and because it sells. If the majority of players didn't want it, they wouldn't be making it every year. And you can be sure they don't make a new CoD like a mod, basically adding content to the original game and repackaging it. That's not how development works.

If they spent 4 years making a game it should have less mistakes than something which has been rushed out for Christmas. Your logic is flawed.

Who said anything about mistakes? I talked about the designers decision to change dribbling to a new way. That is only a mistake after the fact. But in your preference, it would take 4 years to correct this "mistake", whereas in the way it is now, they can get it done in one year. My logic still stands. And in any case, more time thrown at a game does not always equal quality improvement for it. Ever heard of feature creep? Duke Nukem Forever would like a word with you.

[SweatyPa1ms]

 

Yearly iterations means they can upgrade the game one step at a time, as well as fix problems that come up with it. Say FIFA is released every 4 years. People buy it. They don't like the way the dribbling works. EA listens to it. They want to change. But it's not a change that can be patched in without serious modifications to the engine. So everyone will have to wait 4 years until the next release. 4 years comes along, the dribbling is good, but now the free-kick system is kind of broken, because the designers decided to come up with a new way for it. People complain, EA listens. But again, 4 years to wait until the next release. They can do yearly titles, the majority of players welcome the yearly titles, it's good for EA, it's good for the staff, it's good for the gamers. Hence, it's done.

This is where you mentioned mistakes. If people complain about something. It's a mistake. Don't try to call incompetence "progressive development". Minecraft was progressive development and you only had to pay for it ONCE!

 

Also, are you that naive to think it costs the amount of money EA pull in to develop a better FIFA game each year? It's delusional thinking.

 

By the way. I know some games can turn out to be poor even after years of development. Hence why I said....

 

 

If they spent 4 years making a game it should have less mistakes than something which has been rushed out for Christmas.

 

Obviously there are going to be exceptions to the rule but if people are given more time to develop and test the game, it generally is going to a better product. Surely you can grasp that.

Edited April 25, 2013 by SweatyPa1ms

[Durden]

 

@gionascm2. Well check this out and this struck me as well. I may think so in my honest opinion. 

 

"The Official UK PlayStation Magazine lent credence to speculation that Modern Warfare 3 would be a prequel starring fan favourite character Ghost. The magazine's sources strengthened a rumor which first reared its head online early in January 2011. On the Rumor Machine page in its issue (055), OPM points to "insider whispers" which suggest: "Infinity Ward's next Modern Warfare title will be a prequel, with Ghost in the lead role

 

This better be true! After BO2 I vowed to never get another CoD until the price lowers, but if the campaign really does feature Ghost, I will have to break my own promise!

[LittleBlueTroll]

Considering Ghost wasn't the lead character or playable in anyway, he is surprisingly popular.

[KilnerLUFC]

People have yet to even see a trailer and already they're slagging it off

At least wait to see some kind of footage before presuming its just "The same sh*t"

Because it's CoD, will always happen no matter what, simply because people believe it's cool to bash the most popular things these days...

[Secura]

 

Who said anything about mistakes? I talked about the designers decision to change dribbling to a new way. That is only a mistake after the fact. But in your preference, it would take 4 years to correct this "mistake", whereas in the way it is now, they can get it done in one year. My logic still stands. And in any case, more time thrown at a game does not always equal quality improvement for it. Ever heard of feature creep? Duke Nukem Forever would like a word with you.

You'd be a fool if you were to use Duke Nukem Forever as an example for why working on a game for a long period of time isn't beneficial.

 

Firstly, we've no evidence to support just how much involvement Gearbox actually had with the project, similar to Aliens: Colonial Marines it's entirely possible that a large majority of the game was actually outsourced to other developers that would've worked on other parts of the game, for all we know Gearbox may have just been focused on the multiplayer and that's about it.

 

Secondly, the game was in development for eleven years. Let that sink in for a moment, that's around about 346896000 seconds. A fairly substantial amount of time passed during this game's development, during this massive time period it switched engines, developers and publishers dozens of times. How are we supposed to know that it wasn't just Gearbox's job to fix a broken mess and leave it at that.

 

What I'm getting at here is that if a game remains under the development of just one developer, over the course of many years then the game will almost certainly turn out to be fantastic. There are really no examples of a game that's had a good development history that turned out very, very bad. Games with troubled development histories a la Duke Nukem Forever don't always turn out great, therefore it's only logical to expect that if the next Call of Duty developers were to be given a fairly substantial amount of time to work on the game it is highly likely that the game may in fact be a lot better then any prior games in the series.

 

Of course Activision won't bother going down that route, they're making far, far too much off of the game in its current state to bother changing up anything that they're doing with it. Essentially it comes down to the fact that they like feeding the sheep-like masses what they want, which is the same game recycled with a different lick of paint year, after year, after year.

Edited April 27, 2013 by Lightning Strike

[Tchuck]

 

Yearly iterations means they can upgrade the game one step at a time, as well as fix problems that come up with it. Say FIFA is released every 4 years. People buy it. They don't like the way the dribbling works. EA listens to it. They want to change. But it's not a change that can be patched in without serious modifications to the engine. So everyone will have to wait 4 years until the next release. 4 years comes along, the dribbling is good, but now the free-kick system is kind of broken, because the designers decided to come up with a new way for it. People complain, EA listens. But again, 4 years to wait until the next release. They can do yearly titles, the majority of players welcome the yearly titles, it's good for EA, it's good for the staff, it's good for the gamers. Hence, it's done.

This is where you mentioned mistakes. If people complain about something. It's a mistake. Don't try to call incompetence "progressive development". Minecraft was progressive development and you only had to pay for it ONCE!

 

I mentioned bad design decisions, but not mistakes. People complain that you can't jump in game X, is that a mistake? No, it's a design decision. I hate some of the design decisions in many games, but I don't see them as mistakes as the designers created exactly what they set out to. Minecraft is not a valid comparison because it was developed by a team of one, and not by a team of 500+, did not have to deal with licensing costs, dealing with lawyers, marketing, certification, f*ck even players themselves calling to complain that their dribbling is not up to their real life standards, as well as largely benefited from being "open" in it's developmental nature, something big companies will not be able to do, at least not in the near future.

 

 

Also, are you that naive to think it costs the amount of money EA pull in to develop a better FIFA game each year?  It's delusional thinking.

I am not, because I do work on FIFA. Do you know why they develop it yearly? One, because people will buy it, and two, because they have to pay for licensing for everything, from kits, to names, to boots, to balls, to flags, to associations. With the amount of money they have to pay, it makes no sense to develop one game in 4 years. It would simply not work. The math would not add. That amount of time cannot be justified in any way possible, unless you expect EA to layoff half their workforce, and slow down development. And noone has answered me, what improvement could FIFA receive from being made in 4 years that it doesn't get in 1 year?

 

 

By the way.  I know some games can turn out to be poor even after years of development.  Hence why I said....

 

If they spent 4 years making a game it should have less mistakes than something which has been rushed out for Christmas.

Obviously there are going to be exceptions to the rule but if people are given more time to develop and test the game, it generally is going to a better product. Surely you can grasp that.

Obviously I can grasp that, but you said that that was the reason why they should be making a game for four years, instead of "rushing" it in one. I know for a fact, with respect to the development cycle for FIFA, that it works. It's not perfect, but it works. They can get everything done in time for what they want, hence it does not make any sense for them to produce something in 4 years if they can do it faster, for less money, in 1. And from the view of the developer, it also makes better "career" sense to have a shorter development cycle as it means you can work on more products over the same span of years, and due to that, better chance for growing and getting a promotion, as well as of improving your skills.

 

 

 

You'd be a fool if you were to use Duke Nukem Forever as an example for why working on a game for a long period of time isn't beneficial.

I would be, if DNF was not the perfect example for it. Not even going into the argument of the developer changes, which obviously results in problems no matter the time spent/how good the teams are, go back to the beginning of DNF. It started out with a prospective development time which was pretty standard by the time. But over time, due to mostly a lack of focus, they kept trying to improve something, to get something done better, which led to problems in other areas, and then a new tech would pop up, and they would decide to switch to that, in name of quality, so they could stand out ago. And on, and on, and on, always polishing, always adding more, always trying to reach a little bit closer to the gold spot. If from the start they had set their goal, had a clear vision for what they wanted, and stuck to it, it would have been a much better game.

 

 

What I'm getting at here is that if a game remains under the development of just one developer, over the course of many years then the game will almost certainly turn out to be fantastic. There are really no examples of a game that's had a good development history that turned out very, very bad. Games with troubled development histories a la Duke Nukem Forever don't always turn out great, therefore it's only logical to expect that if the next Call of Duty developers were to be given a fairly substantial amount of time to work on the game it is highly likely that the game may in fact be a lot better then any prior games in the series.

What do you say of Rage? It was developed solely by id, which is the creator of the FPS genre, over the span of nearly 7 years, and turned out to be a pretty bad game overall. Games seldom turn out great, regardless of their development history.

 

My point is not that extra years are not beneficial; they can be. But they must also make sense. If you have a process that works great for set amount of time, produces a good amount of quality, why would you try to expand that amount of time for a dubious return in quality?

 

Everyone keeps saying that if CoD had extra years of development time, or if it wasn't a yearly release, it would be a much superior game. Mind if I ask, then, what do you think they could improve in CoD if they were given these extra couple of years? How unpolished are the CoD games currently? What should they be focusing on?

[SweatyPa1ms]

Tchuck - Can you understand that some of those "design decisions" might be wrong and what the developers set out to do and did might not what be what the people wanted? The customer is what counts. Not the false pride of a poor development team. These are the sorts of decisions that can make or break a game. Something you don't have to worry about as generation after generation of dumb f*cks will keep buying FIFA regardless of quality.

 

Don't try to say Minecraft is poor comparison because of how your company operates with it's own back pocket in mind. If EA or Activision would have made Minecraft and realised the success, you can bet we would have seen 4 or 5 sequels by now!

 

The rest of what you said doesn't really warrant much of a response. Apart from this...

 

 

And noone has answered me, what improvement could FIFA receive from being made in 4 years that it doesn't get in 1 year?

 

I did answer you when I said that you would have more time to develop, polish and test the game. Also you metioned in a previous post that the game couldn't be patched for some silly reason. Why not make a game that can be patched and one that people can enjoy enough without complaining about too much. One that stands the test of time like a GOOD game does. Tell me? Name me a classic FIFA game? They don't exist. I can't believe you're trying to justify EA's corporate bullsh*t. They shut down the servers for their older games so you have to get the new ones to play online ffs. It's a joke and you're idiotic if you think it can't be done in a better way for the consumer. People want quality. Not sequels for the sake of profits for sh*tty publishers like EA.

 

Why don't you accept defeat and instead of taking the time to reply, go and work on that game you're so proud of. You know, the one that's going to be obsolete and completely forgotten about in 18 months time.

Edited April 28, 2013 by SweatyPa1ms

[MistuhDoughnutty]

Okay, so fair enough if the game f*cks up in some way, they can release another next year. However, patch it. Why the f*ck should people spend forty Sterling or sixty Dollars just to get a slight improvement when it can be patched?

 

The engine will most likely be tweaked rather than fully revamped or even made brand new. And I have to agree with EA simply developing it over a longer period of time. Perhaps not four years but still.

 

The way Fifa sells is EXACTLY the same as CoD. People just want another one because everyone will get it, tiny bit better graphics, Torres doesn't look like he's snorted coke and so on.

 

Call of Duty? HOLY sh*t, NEW GUNS.

 

Fifa? HOLY sh*t, THEY UPDATED THE KIT.

 

The masses might not even notice the engine, OR, they wont care. The newest Fifa that is currently out could be changed ever so slightly and repackaged, which to be honest I don't doubt they do.

 

Modern Warfare 2 and 3 are the same. MW3 is MW2 in the sense that nothing has changed except the guns. Surely everyone has seen that picture online of a PC gamer playing MW3, and it has a little popup saying "MW2 Has failed to load" or something like that. I can guess Fifa is perhaps changed and tweaked but, not worth the extra money.

 

[Jake]

MW3 isn't as smooth and fluid as MW2 in my opinion. It felt a little more clunky and the bullet detection was off. BOII feels a lot more polished than MW3, but still has bullet detection issues. They need a new engine for spot on bullet detection. I want to see bullets flying through enemy arm pits if its just a little bit off. Maybe that's a little dramatic, but you get the point. I've seen some wacky ass killcams with a guy shooting the air a foot away from the enemy and it counted as a headshot. Spot on bullet detection is essential for a shooter.

 

I love CoD. Always have. But the bullet detection and servers should be priority #1. Always. For all I care the first new next gen CoD could look like it does now as long as it plays proper. These two things are all I ever gripe about. And I still do damn well playing. But when you have those moments when you're using, say, a sniper rifle and you have a crosshair dead on someone and it lags or you just don't hit them, we have issues. Even that isn't very often.

 

I really don't understand the gripes people have saying CoD is just a rehash all the time. I think 3Arch did a great job on BOII. Really. The scorestreak system and pick ten are really fun and different but still hold true to the shooter CoD is.

 

The improvements both aesthetically and gameplay wise I would like to see destructible environments. Shoot an rpg at a wall, wall breaks. Campers exposed. Routes changed. New lines of sight opened. It can impact a match of CoD a lot more than something like Battlefield because the maps are much smaller and tighter than Battlefield. I'd like to see some bigger maps incorporated back into CoD though. Too many small maps isn't a good thing. We need a mixture. I want some open fields like WaW. Bring back vehicles for these maps as well. Not all. Like the good old days.

 

I remember playing Town Square on CoD2 Big Red One and everyone rushing everytime the enemy tank came around a corner. And it only took an rpg or two to take it out so it wasn't game breaking. Bring that sh*t back.

 

And bring back ragdoll physics with added weight for deaths. I'm tired of the same old animations. It used to be funny as hell watching people fly in the air when you hit em with an explosive or do a flip with a nice 50 cal round to the dome. Why did they ever get rid of that?

Edited April 28, 2013 by Jake

[tuareg]

I just want better hit detection. Also preferably dedicated servers and legitimate gun statistics so the game isn't just a 50/50 between you killing someone or them killing you regardless of who saw who first.

 

Seriously now. Back in 2011 i played MW2 ALL DAY. I raged a lot, but i always went back because i could put up good scores and a high kd even when i had 80-100+ kills. Now i hardly go positive and i get killed by people who are not even on my screen. Like getting slapped straight up and down the map at times. I don't care about kd, but i'd get killed 20-30 times and i still managed to kill three times as many people if not more back in the day. Not anymore though.

 

Yet i go back to playing BF3 and i instantly end up with 60 something kills and 10-15 deaths. All while running around and pushing into enemy territory (i'm not an m16 type of guy either).

 

/pointless rant

Edited April 28, 2013 by tuareg

[tubbs51]

@Sweaty: What you said about FIFA is right on the dot for most of EA's Sports games including Madden

[+ Dragonjack +]

After seeing some big discussions on the next Call Of Duty game and what has to be changed etc. Here are some great news by CVG.

 

"The game, expected to be titled 'Call of Duty: Ghosts', thanks in part to an earlier Tesco leak, will be "powerd by a new next-generation Call of Duty engine", according to a new listing which cropped up this weekend (pictured right, via AllGamesBeta).

The now-removed product description read:

 

"The franchise that has defined a generation of gaming is set to raise the bar once again with the all-new Call of Duty: Ghosts. Published by Activision and developed by Infinity Ward, the studio that created the original Call of Duty and the seminal Call of Duty: Modern Warfare series, Call of Duty: Ghosts ushers in the next generation of the franchise, delivering a riveting all-new gameplay experience built on an entirely new story, setting and cast, all powered by a new next-generation Call of Duty engine."

 

Activision is yet to confirm platforms for the new game, but the series' typical annual November releases would align this year's game with the launch on Sony and Microsoft's next generation consoles, both of which are expected to go on sale before Christmas.

 

Earlier last week, the retail giant posted listings for Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the unannounced but previously rumoured Call of Duty: Ghosts, complete with box art that appeared to be genuine"

 

...Like finally? Hah. I'm expecting the announcement by this week I presume.

[Creed Bratton]

The franchise that has defined a generation of gaming is set to raise the bar once again with the all-new Call of Duty: Ghosts.

This sentence pisses me off for so many reasons.

[+ Dragonjack +]

The franchise that has defined a generation of gaming is set to raise the bar once again with the all-new Call of Duty: Ghosts.

This sentence pisses me off for so many reasons.

Sorry if it actually does, I reckon the new Call Of Duty game will have a big drastic change by the new Infinity Ward studio.

 

I'm looking forward to it myself very much.

[Finn 7 five 11]

\Seriously now. Back in 2011 i played MW2 ALL DAY. I raged a lot, but i always went back because i could put up good scores and a high kd even when i had 80-100+ kills. Now i hardly go positive and i get killed by people who are not even on my screen. Like getting slapped straight up and down the map at times. I don't care about kd, but i'd get killed 20-30 times and i still managed to kill three times as many people if not more back in the day. Not anymore though.

 

Yet i go back to playing BF3 and i instantly end up with 60 something kills and 10-15 deaths. All while running around and pushing into enemy territory (i'm not an m16 type of guy either).

 

/pointless rant

I was the same for Black Ops 1, I Actually got really good at it. Team Deathmatch I ranked up in the top thousand many weeks in a row when I played ground war, if I played straight Team Deathmatch I would end up in the top few thousand though, it was Spyplane--->Blackbird---->Dogs and then again every single game.

 

Then I just got bored, and now I can't do that, at all, i've become a quickscoper because regular games just kinda bore me because I can't get good scores, I think the reason I can't play good anymore is because that sense of urgency and that is gone, I don't have this ridiculous motivation to constantly win and get streaks.

 

 

[tuareg]

Then I just got bored, and now I can't do that, at all, i've become a quickscoper because regular games just kinda bore me because I can't get good scores, I think the reason I can't play good anymore is because that sense of urgency and that is gone, I don't have this ridiculous motivation to constantly win and get streaks.

 

 

The novelty wore off i thnk. Now i just tube in objective barebones and that's it. Or i run around with a spas.

[LittleBlueTroll]

I personally played MW3 into the ground lol i basically lived on the game! I have all my favorite weapons gold, unlocked a large majority of the titles and emblems, hit 13 prestige's (Not going to 20 as i get nothing for it) Had every kill streak, and with 60,000+ kills and a 1.80 KD there isn't really much more for me to accomplish from it.

 

And as i am a huge fan of the Infinity Ward side of Call of Duty, that's why im looking forward to something new and fresh, something to be able to get my teeth into again.

[Lock n' Stock]

When will they stop? I'd found it laughable if they had called it "Modern Warfare 4", considering the first Modern Warfare was called "Call of Duty 4".

 

At least they're bothering to use a new engine this time. Still, I'm sick of this series.

[LittleBlueTroll]

When will they stop? I'd found it laughable if they had called it "Modern Warfare 4", considering the first Modern Warfare was called "Call of Duty 4".

 

At least they're bothering to use a new engine this time. Still, I'm sick of this series.

Well no, it was Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare, it was the 4th COD title but the 1st Modern Warfare. It was never "Modern Warfare Call of Duty 4"

[Lock n' Stock]

When will they stop? I'd found it laughable if they had called it "Modern Warfare 4", considering the first Modern Warfare was called "Call of Duty 4".

 

At least they're bothering to use a new engine this time. Still, I'm sick of this series.

Well no, it was Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare, it was the 4th COD title but the 1st Modern Warfare. It was never "Modern Warfare Call of Duty 4"

That's what I mean. It was "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" but I'm stating that it would have been dumb to call the next game "Modern Warfare 4" considering the first Modern Warfare game was the fourth overall game in the series.

[Tchuck]

 

Something you don't have to worry about as generation after generation of dumb f*cks will keep buying FIFA regardless of quality. 

A very prejudiced statement, what makes them dumb f*cks?

 

 

Don't try to say Minecraft is poor comparison because of how your company operates with it's own back pocket in mind.  If EA or Activision would have made Minecraft and realised the success, you can bet we would have seen 4 or 5 sequels by now!

 

Because it is a f*cking poor comparison. They are different games, in completely different genres, made in complete different ways. It would be like comparing the process of building a Pagani to that of producing some random Ford. It doesn't matter if EA or Activision had made the game, it would have been a completely different game and probably not as successful due to other reasons. But if they were to be developed by them, chances are you'd see DLC instead of Sequels.

 

 

And noone has answered me, what improvement could FIFA receive from being made in 4 years that it doesn't get in 1 year?

 

I did answer you when I said that you would have more time to develop, polish and test the game.

But what specific thing needs polish? What specific features needs time to develop? How is the game done so sh*tty in 1 year that it wouldn't be in 4 years?

 

 

Also you metioned in a previous post that the game couldn't be patched for some silly reason. Why not make a game that can be patched and one that people can enjoy enough without complaining about too much.

Where are the masses complaining about the yearly releases on FIFA? Where are the inflamed responses about how broken the game is?

 

 

One that stands the test of time like a GOOD game does.  Tell me?  Name me a classic FIFA game?  They don't exist.

A classic FIFA game doesn't exit, but FIFA as a series is a classic.

 

 

I can't believe you're trying to justify EA's corporate bullsh*t.  They shut down the servers for their older games so you have to get the new ones to play online ffs.  It's a joke and you're idiotic if you think it can't be done in a better way for the consumer.  People want quality.  Not sequels for the sake of profits for sh*tty publishers like EA.

I'm just trying to show you how things are from the other side. People have these ideas about game development which sometimes are completely wrong. They shut down the older servers because they don't make money on those titles anymore, because servers are extra expenses and because the mass of players will switch to the new game anyway, so what's the point? I'm not idiotic, I think it can be done in a better way for the consumer, and it has been done for other titles, but it wouldn't even matter if EA tried something like that, people like hating on them just like they like hating on Activision, and would find something to hate about it. People want quality, no argument there, but people also want sequels, or they wouldn't sell or get made. If they are for the sake of profit, it's the studio's prerogative, they're a f*cking business, they're in to make some money while making good products. Looking at the reception for all the FIFAs they released over the years, it clearly shows they're doing something right.

 

 

Why don't you accept defeat and instead of taking the time to reply, go and work on that game you're so proud of.  You know, the one that's going to be obsolete and completely forgotten about in 18 months time.

You have failed to objectively show me how the game would be better if it was made in 4 years rather than 1. I have demonstrated objectively why it would make no sense for that, in respect to FIFA or CoD. And I will work on the game I'm proud of. It's a great game, players love it, and while installment of the year might be forgotten in 18 months, the series will live on for decades, longer than any other gaming series.

 

[LittleBlueTroll]

This is about as exciting as my MW3 experience gets now days, called in a MOAB on TDM when the enemy was on 7400 points out of the 7500 needed for them to win. Was really tense haha

 

 

[SweatyPa1ms]

 

A very prejudiced statement, what makes them dumb f*cks?

 

Maybe I was a little harsh to say "dumb f*cks". Mainly it's young people who get their parents to buy the game and people with alot of disposable income who don't know any better. That's EA's market. Maybe not entirely dumb, but dumb with money.

 

 

Because it is a f*cking poor comparison. They are different games, in completely different genres, made in complete different ways. It would be like comparing the process of building a Pagani to that of producing some random Ford. It doesn't matter if EA or Activision had made the game, it would have been a completely different game and probably not as successful due to other reasons. But if they were to be developed by them, chances are you'd see DLC instead of Sequels.

 

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with genres or how the game is made. It's about how you do business and this is what I've been getting at. Since Minecraft became hugely popular they could have charged what they wanted for content but they didn't. If you want a better comparison lets start comparing EA with Valve. We'd have fun with that. Especially me. I wont even start on the Pagani/FIFA metaphor .

 

 

But what specific thing needs polish? What specific features needs time to develop? How is the game done so sh*tty in 1 year that it wouldn't be in 4 years?

 

I've told you what needs to be done and to be honest, you're testing my patience with your ignorance. Make a game which stands the test of time and a game which can be patched. YOU know yourself the "specific" things that need tweaking because apparently they're all gonna be here with FIFA 14! Otherwise, why would we buy it? [i'll get to that in a moment]

 

 

Where are the masses complaining about the yearly releases on FIFA? Where are the inflamed responses about how broken the game is?

 

Following on from my previous point, YOU'RE the ones that think it's necessary to bring out a new game every year. Which is pretty much a patch with the amount of features you actually change. What are you expecting anyway? Kids getting there Mums to ring up customer services? If you we're talking about here on this thread then realise we are talking about FIFA in a CoD thread on a GTA forum.

 

 

A classic FIFA game doesn't exit, but FIFA as a series is a classic.

 

It's ridiculous statements like this that make me want to stop typing, but oh wait, we're just getting to the good part...

 

 

I'm just trying to show you how things are from the other side. People have these ideas about game development which sometimes are completely wrong. They shut down the older servers because they don't make money on those titles anymore, because servers are extra expenses and because the mass of players will switch to the new game anyway, so what's the point?

 

That's exactly the point. EA shuts down the servers so people are FORCED into buying the newer game if they want to play online. We cant host our own games because the game was designed so it has to go through EA servers. THIS IS WHAT THEY DO!

 

 

I'm not idiotic, I think it can be done in a better way for the consumer, and it has been done for other titles, but it wouldn't even matter if EA tried something like that, people like hating on them just like they like hating on Activision, and would find something to hate about it. People want quality, no argument there, but people also want sequels, or they wouldn't sell or get made. If they are for the sake of profit, it's the studio's prerogative, they're a f*cking business, they're in to make some money while making good products. Looking at the reception for all the FIFAs they released over the years, it clearly shows they're doing something right.

 

People hate Activision and EA because they don't care about the gamer. They just want as much money as possible, as fast as possible. Bottom line.

 

 

I will work on the game I'm proud of. It's a great game, players love it, and while installment of the year might be forgotten in 18 months, the series will live on for decades, longer than any other gaming series.

 

Have your pride. But I've got something better called the truth and it knows your game is child fodder and the reason why it will be the longest running series is because firstly, football is popular which by the way is no achievement of your own. And secondly, you've got a monopoly on the market with the exclusive licensing which again, is no achievement of the development team.

 

gg

Edited April 30, 2013 by SweatyPa1ms

[hobointheyard]

There really is no point of sniping in this game. I mean real sniping. It's always Quickscopezzzzzzz.

And I love how holding down a building you get the reaction: "Camper" "No skill." And this game doesn't have those tense situations like in Battlefield. I remember one in Battlefield I had A suppressed G53 and I was totally behind enemy lines. I took out half of their snipers with knifes and my gun. Another time a tank was coming by, I took cover in the bushes beside me, let it pass, than I took it out with some C4.

That's something you'll never see in CoD.

 

Something I do enjoy though, is watching whiteboy7thst. His vids actually got me to pop in my MW3. I has some fun, but I couldn't hold my attention to it for as long as I could with BF3.

Edited April 30, 2013 by hobointheyard

[Booze]

Way to derail the topic, Hobo.

[Finn 7 five 11]

A very prejudiced statement, what makes them dumb f*cks?

 

Maybe I was a little harsh to say "dumb f*cks". Mainly it's young people who get their parents to buy the game and people with alot of disposable income who don't know any better. That's EA's market. Maybe not entirely dumb, but dumb with money.

 

Gee, these kids must be rich to afford a $60 release (American) every year. And I don't see why they have to be dumb to enjoy the game.

 

You also still haven't mentioned how Fifa could be improved by a longer development cycle, there's a reason it's a yearly thing, it's so you get the new players for each season, and people like playing as their favourite players.

 

Call Of Duty doesn't really need a longer development cycle either, they have 2 years per title switching between two titles, and it's good, every year the new game is really active and all the lobbies are full again, and I honestly think if they gave themselves longer, the game would come out worse, Activision is poorly managed, so more time doesn't necessarily equal better product, with other games it does though, IE; Grand Theft Auto.

 

Plus Call Of Duty is pretty damn close to exactly what it's supposed to be, It's a fast-paced gun-on-gun game with plenty of action. That's all it's supposed to be. My only gripes is that there are a few stupid glitches and hit detection is off. I think they need to develop a new engine, they've been f*cking slack with what they have at the moment, the engine has hardly changed from like 5-6 years ago, and that's what causes a lot of the glitches and such.