Jump to content

Has the Call Of Duty Franchise reached its deadline?


Has it.  

73 members have voted

  1. 1. Has it really?



Recommended Posts

Biohazard Abyss

To be fair, the Danger Close was one if the very few flaws it had.

The flaws were

 

Danger Close OP

One Man Army exploit

OP Dual 1887s

OP UMP 45

 

I think they fixed the UMP and the OP 1887s. They never got around the DC+OMA. That's two exploits, that's damn near perfect compared to now,

 

 

MW2 couldn't be taken seriously because of how wacky the game was, with things like:

 

Commando

Lightweight+Marathon+Tac Knife

The sheer amount of ridiculous killstreaks in the game

ACR having absolutely no recoil

Quickscoping

 

It was just a hodgepodge of everything possibly stupid. It was a great game to mess around with, but laughable for competitive play :sui:

  • Like 2

The following numbers are from VGChartz (FYI: they are somewhat off as they don't include digital sales, and VGC doesn't receive direct sales reports from publishers):

[table]

Call of Duty: Ghosts20.75 millionCall of Duty: Black Ops II25.19 millionCall of Duty: Modern Warfare 329.59 millionCall of Duty: Black Ops29.5 millionCall of Duty: Modern Warfare 224.37 millionCall of Duty: World at War16.80 million[/table]

It's not really looking like the series will disappear from the scene anytime soon. Looking at the list one could argue that each new title sells worse than its predecessor since BOII, but then again the older games are clearly longer on the market than the two most recent titles. Even if the sale figures are getting worse with each new release, selling +20 million copies of just one product is quite impressive. Most games struggle to sell that much in a matter of years, whereas CoD manages to do it in just a few months. Edited by Andreas
HaythamKenway

@ Andreas

 

Yup. The worst that can happen to CoD is that it'll end up like Halo - once a top dog franchise that still has more than impressive sales, but the kids moved on to a new cool thing.

Detective Phelps

@ Andreas

 

Yup. The worst that can happen to CoD is that it'll end up like Halo - once a top dog franchise that still has more than impressive sales, but the kids moved on to a new cool thing.

That "new cool thing" will probably be Battlefield. Then EA will make the same game every year (well, thinking about it, BF4 is very similar to BF3... ;) ) after 10 years, the kids will get tired of that, and move on to something else, and so on.

 

I voted yes, since even more of the hard-line fans are getting tired of this cycle where a similar game is released every year.

Edited by Los Santos Police Department

 

@ Andreas

 

Yup. The worst that can happen to CoD is that it'll end up like Halo - once a top dog franchise that still has more than impressive sales, but the kids moved on to a new cool thing.

That "new cool thing" will probably be Battlefield. Then EA will make the same game every year (well, thinking about it, BF4 is very similar to BF3... ;) ) after 10 years, the kids will get tired of that, and move on to something else, and so on.

 

I voted yes, since even more of the hard-line fans are getting tired of this cycle where a similar game is released every year.

 

And now, inside of me, paranoia starts.

Detective Phelps

 

 

@ Andreas

 

Yup. The worst that can happen to CoD is that it'll end up like Halo - once a top dog franchise that still has more than impressive sales, but the kids moved on to a new cool thing.

That "new cool thing" will probably be Battlefield. Then EA will make the same game every year (well, thinking about it, BF4 is very similar to BF3... ;) ) after 10 years, the kids will get tired of that, and move on to something else, and so on.

 

I voted yes, since even more of the hard-line fans are getting tired of this cycle where a similar game is released every year.

 

And now, inside of me, paranoia starts.

 

It's already begun. The Elder Scrolls have foretold this event.

But there is one they fear...

 

Then it'll be ArmA.

I was actually going to say that, but I didn't want to tell everything... ;)

I remember not too long ago reading Half-Life 2 Raising The Bar, in the book Josh Weier says that "Puzzles and "down time" are like a sorbet in a multi-course meal, in that they allow the player to better appreciate whatever comes next. Without these pacing contrasts everything just becomes a numbing blur of relentless action, which winds up being fatiguing and not very fun after a while". This quote is in the book's section on the Ravenholm level, but you can see that this idea was applied to every level of Half-Life 2; for example the game barely ever uses music and when it does it doesn't draw on for too long. Combat is divided into deliberately paced set-pieces, with much of the player's time spent excavating or scavenging rather than engaging in gun-battles and firefights, and once those fast, loud, battles are over the game gets extremely quiet.

It's filled to the brim with quiet-time. You see, quiet-time is an extremely integral part of narrative-driven action games, but it's sorely neglected in some the largest action games out there, and after playing the campaign of Call of Duty: Ghosts, none of you should have any trouble at all understanding why I started to be drawn to the idea of discussing the importance of quiet-time in modern action games. The Call of Duty campaigns are a source of non-stop, relentless, run-and-gun action and whilst they're not entirely lacking in quiet-time, they are lacking in moments where the narrative just shuts its mouth for a little while and lets you explore the world the developers have crafted on your lonesome with little to no interruptions.
During scenes where you're not supposed to be in intensely concentrating on the combat, you're instead supposed to be intensely concentrating on whatever NPC's backside is guiding you through the narrow hallways of Call of Duty's campaign. I also noticed this problem for the first time a few years ago when I played Saints Row The Third for the first time, the whole game just seems to be a non-stop barrage of either over-the-top action or over-the-top humour, and it was never evenly distributed. One of the two possible endings to the game (and the one I originally picked) has the main character shooting up a mockage to the Statue of Liberty with Bonnie Tyler's Holding out for a Hero playing loudly in the background, the problem is that the beginning of the game had me diving through an airplane in mid-air and skydiving out of said plane avoiding both its wreckage and cargo all the while engaging in a sky-diving gunfight with a bunch of suicidal mafioso.
I think what that's telling us is that without some spacing between the non-stop insanity it gets harder and harder to differentiate between what is and isn't meant to be utterly insane, and that's exactly what quiet-time in gaming does, it helps the player better appreciate the loudness of the action so that we can be prepared for it, and yet still understand why every battle we fight and every skirmish we enter holds its own individual importance and significance in the overall narrative. This rant here is really only applicable to a certain genre of games, those being narrative driven action games such as FPS and the like. They also happen to be the most lucrative genre in existence these days, and even though Call of Duty barely has any down-time it topped the industry in sales for a large part of the last decade, and that's likely because there's a much larger value in the multiplayer game than there is in the somewhat short singleplayer campaigns, and that doesn't really tie in to the same sort of storytelling that the singleplayer does.
Though this concept is most likely applicable to almost any sort of storytelling out there, a lot of it has to do with the pacing of the experience itself. Andrie Tarkovsky's film Stalker is exemplary of this, as it contains a five-minute-long scene in which many of the characters just sit there riding a train whilst some ambient music plays quietly in the background, and although the brief explanation I've given the scene might make it sound as though the scene perhaps drags on for too long, or is too dull and doesn't contain enough action to keep the viewer interested the opposite is in fact true, it's surprisingly entertaining to watch. The Stalker games contain sections where you spend five to ten minutes throwing screws into the air and that's surprisingly pleasing too.
Quiet-time doesn't have to (and really shouldn't) be added to the detriment of the action, its whole purpose in fact is that is there to essentiate it, it can if done properly provide the player with some much needed respite in preparation for that action, or add some further variety to the gameplay with entirely non-violent activities such as puzzles or dialogue, it could be used to take advantage of some of the less interactive merits of videogames such as exploration and environmental storytelling, or just the simple pleasure of traversing through some pretty landscapes or taking a scenic drive. Quiet-time helps the player to compare the action, to whatever isn't supposed to be the action, and this rather interestingly ties into the deliberate arrangement of the entirety of a game's content, from how the music system works to how fast-paced and brutal the combat is, to how the level-design could potentially funnel the player through the game, and balancing out all of those individual pieces to make room for some quiet-time can really end up making a game feel so much more fleshed-out.
Regulating just how much of the game the player is exposed to at any one time is a challenge of exposition, you don't want to spoil the biggest thrills too early on and have the player become mentally unengaged with the events of the game leading to the finale, and a lot of developers seems to get frustrated at how few players get hooked enough to actually get to the end of that singleplayer campaign, though if you're trying to hook the player for that amount of time then the way the game distributes and dispenses its content becomes much more important than the content it's actually delivering. Quiet-time is a moment for the player to be able to slowdown and think and it's moment for the developers to be able to use some subtext to get the player pondering about what else could be going on in the story, it can really make a player feel smart when you hide details that are relevant to the main narrative in the environments, or it can make players feel concentrated and scared by simply ramping up the tension.
Take a look Resident Evil 4 for a perfect example of this, it was widely praised for being a game that relentlessly exciting, white-knuckle action, even though most of the gameplay is centered around quietly exploring areas that have no enemies inside of them at all, perhaps part of the reason why it was so enthralling lies within the game's level design, maybe the high consequences of its punishing combat were spaced far away enough to make each individual instance feel meaningful. Level-design is in my opinion the most important aspect of a narrative driven action game like Call of Duty, levels are essentially what dictates the pacing of the narrative as a whole, level-design's what the decides the flow between scenes such as dialogue, drama and combat and also the quiet more introspective moments that are scattered between them.
Anyway I recently also finished Metal Gear Rising and noticed that even the absolute insanity of that game still makes time for moments where you're free to go off to find and hunt collectibles and such, hell even Doom and Quake managed to squeeze a sizable amount of that content into them, and as much as the fanbase likes to complain about the keycard hunts present in those games I personally feel as though the overall experience would've been much worse without them. If you really take the time to think about it, some of the most beloved action games ever made seem to value quiet-time over the alternatives; Dark Souls for example has no regular background music at all and the levels themselves are dripping with atmosphere despite the emptiness and shallowness that the environments contain. If I remember correctly the only music the game ever plays is when you're engaged in some sort of boss battle and that's because they're the fastest paced and most desperate moments of the entire experience, whereas outside of these moments the game allows the player to go at a slower, more cautious pace.
Another good example is MGS3, it has no ambient background music, just the sounds of the fictional jungle surrounding you, the game is completely silent up until the point where you're spotted and since the game's core principle is stealth that is exactly the sort of thing you're supposed to be trying to avoid. There seems to be a far more serene and patient feel to the experience when you're unnoticed by anyone around you, it's just the sounds of nature like birds chirping or fish swimming, and that reflects the slow pacing of the game's stealth. Once you do get spotted, the loud music rips into your ears and instills a sense of a panic in the player, it's clear for all to see that the game's clearly drawing a line between two entirely different states of play, these games are all built with systems that use quiet-time to influence how you're supposed to play depending on the situations you're getting into.
On the other hand though Call of Duty has no real hands-off player-driven quiet-time that I can recall, I mean the most recent player-driven moment I can remember was there was that one section in Ghosts where you're being stalked in a jungle by overpowering enemies so you're not encouraged to just sit around and relax, and it mechanically reels in one over-the-top ridiculously scripted action sequence after another. Without ever thinking to hold off the larger spectacles for the end of the game, the series uses its loading screens as massive exposition dumps without ever incorporating the slightest piece of exposition into the level itself, and the stuff you actually do in those levels isn't consistent at all all thanks to drastically different gameplay that comes from all the drastically different scripted sequences. The player never seems to be given time to slowdown and think for themselves and take in the scenery, you're constantly being herded along by very loud, imposing people telling you what to do against a loud, dramatic soundtrack that's constantly being peppered with gunfire.
Though the one Call of Duty level that everyone I know seems to enjoy the most is All Ghillied Up, which is rather ironically one of the quietest moments of the entire series, and whilst it isn't exactly what I'd call down time it certainly a lot quieter than the typical gameplay you come to expect from Call of Duty. It's sort of odd to see the series attempting to follow in the footsteps of that one sequence, though it also shows that presenting non-stop action without taking some sort of break isn't an effective way to tell a story. There's a lot to gain from tastefully dipping into some simple quiet time, from letting us explore a lush-vibrant forest or taking a slow drive into the sunset with A Flock of Seagulls' I Ran Away playing appropriately in the background, or just something entirely basic like searching through an empty area for things you may have overlooked.
And Call of Duty just seems to dismiss how much they could've added to the experience by simply letting the player sit down and take in that view.
Edited by Secura

No it hasn't, the same amount of people are joining in the Call Of Duty hate wagon, most of them joined in around 2010 and guess what? The game is still selling.

 

"Hurrr, no one's buying this game"

- 5.6 million units in the U.S and U.K combined in 24 hours

2 years later

"Hurrr, this game is dead, boring, BF is kingzzz!!"

- Activision reported sales figures for Black Ops II in the U.S. being more than 7.5 million copies sold on launch day

 

You can keep bashing the series, you can bash the fans and call them kids.. but you're seriously doing nothing to change how it works, people enjoy arcade shooters, which IMO is what it is when you compare it to other FPS games. Everyone, not just kids need a game to sit down for about 30 minutes or so and have fun, not a game where you're defending your team mates for over 50 minutes (not saying I don't enjoy that, just talking about a general gamer) If the game keeps selling, there's no reason why they should change the series around, SHOULD they? Of course, but it's not mandatory when everything is going well for them, and their sales speak for itself already.

Detective Phelps

 

Its reached its peak for 'real gamers' everyone else will keep getting it because they don't know any better

Or because they want to have fun in a run n gun shooter...

 

...that's the same as the one from last year!

SingularSoul

Hand me a copy of any COD before and including World at War, and I'll be happy.

 

Hand me any COD game post-WAW and I'll open the case, take the disk out,

put it between the thighs of an old age pensioner in a care home overnight,

bring it back wearing a hazard suit, put it back in the case, smother the case in octopus semen,

place it on the ground between my legs, squat down and dump a big fat log on it,

then toss it back at you in disgust.

Edited by SingularSoul
  • Like 2

 

To be fair, the Danger Close was one if the very few flaws it had.

The flaws were

 

Danger Close OP

One Man Army exploit

OP Dual 1887s

OP UMP 45

 

I think they fixed the UMP and the OP 1887s. They never got around the DC+OMA. That's two exploits, that's damn near perfect compared to now,

 

 

MW2 couldn't be taken seriously because of how wacky the game was, with things like:

 

Commando

Lightweight+Marathon+Tac Knife

The sheer amount of ridiculous killstreaks in the game

ACR having absolutely no recoil

Quickscoping

 

It was just a hodgepodge of everything possibly stupid. It was a great game to mess around with, but laughable for competitive play :sui:

 

Can't forget

 

Akimbo G18s (and they made the same exact f*cking mistake in MW3 with the FMG9s, but we're not talking about that abortion of a game)

Really sh*tty spawn points in practically all game modes (Highrise start game sniping anyone?)

Stopping power having a monopoly on the 2nd tier perk slot

Boosting with tac inserts

Care package glitch

Nuke killstreak

Ninja pro nearly being uncounterable (Sit-rep pro takes literal eons to obtain)

Last stand/final stand

Blast shield doing f*ck all against explosives (did nullify stun grenades, still don't think it's worth losing your mini map and peripheral though)

 

and a myriad of other things that I'm probably forgetting. With all that said, MW2 was still a fun as hell experience, despite the inevitable rage that it caused (for me at least). As for competitive play, it's akin to Mortal Kombat because it really should never be considered for it. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

 

More on topic though: I've been done with the series since Modern Warfare 3. Everything after Black Ops failed to hold my interest. I really couldn't care less if others keep buying it, that's their prerogative. If you feel it's rehashed bullsh*t (it is in many places to be frank), then show that by not buying the damn game. People aren't going to "wake up" and stop buying it all together if they enjoy it, regardless of what you say.

 

 

Oh and Secura

95.gif

Edited by Ermac.
THE GHETTO JEZUS

I honestly think MW3 was the last decent COD game and MW2 being the best. Yea both games were broken in many ways with horrible spwans, op guns, unbalanced perks, and horrible killstreaks. But the game was still enjoyable to play as to the newer COD's.

 

MW2 would always be the best game out there. Yea, it has its downs but it's still very enjoyable compared to the newer ones. I remember running around with a ACR with a silencer and with Scavenger Pro, Cold Blooded Pro, and Ninja Pro. That is the best setup ever and its the only set up I use to get my nukes. Yea some perks were annoying like One Man Army, Danger Close, and Commando. But if you can avoid that, then the game is pretty good. Also it was nice that some guns got modified as like the Model 1887 akimbo with its range or the UMP 45. Also I like how by default you can have shotguns are your secondary weapon and not use a perk like overkill to do so.

 

Oh yea this video will summarize my thought on MW3

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ4GqpA2LyM

EmagmaLak

''OMDZ COD SUKS ITZ FOR FAGITS LOLOL''

*Checks recently played games, a Cally Of Duty title is in the top 5*

 

This is a situation that you will find with 98% of people.

Call Of Duty is easy to enjoy online with friends. That is one of its biggest draws. Its so easy to just pop it on and play it for 5 minutes or for hours. The familiar formula works and its what keeps millions buying and playing them Every.Single.Year.

 

People will bash it for being released every year but will continually buy Fifa (or any sports game), Halo and Assassins Creed. Despite these games utilizing the exact same ''fun and familiar'' formula that COD has.

  • Like 1

What I wonder: What if Advanced Warfare is f*cking good? Basically since MW3 came out, CoD has gotten a f*ck load of sh*t, but AW's setting (2054, exoskeletons, cloaked drones) opens up a lot of gameplay possibilities like climbing walls in MP.

CReaper210

 

 

Its reached its peak for 'real gamers' everyone else will keep getting it because they don't know any better

Or because they want to have fun in a run n gun shooter...

 

...that's the same as the one from last year!

 

...No, it's not.

HaythamKenway

What I wonder: What if Advanced Warfare is f*cking good? Basically since MW3 came out, CoD has gotten a f*ck load of sh*t, but AW's setting (2054, exoskeletons, cloaked drones) opens up a lot of gameplay possibilities like climbing walls in MP.

Even if AW is the best and most original CoD since CoD 4, I'm afraid people will still hate it, because that's what everyone is used to do. The only thing that can save CoD from people sh*tting all over it is some other series becoming prominent. That's what helped Halo after all. Everyone used to hate on Halo the same way they hate on CoD now, but since 09 or 10 it's suddenly "socially acceptable" to like Halo.

 

...that's the same as the one from last year!

Again, I have to bring up my "sports franchise" analogy, because I think that's what we should compare CoD to. Multiplayer-focused titles are tricky things to develop sequels to. People want the same thing as in previous installment, because it worked.

 

Just ask any Halo fan; Reach is a very different game to 3 and 4 is a very different game to Reach. The result? Since 3, the fanbase never united, because Reach's gameplay changes didn't suit everyone and so didn't 4's. There are some fans who go as far and call the series dead, because they didn't like either and consider 3 to be the last good Halo. Meanwhile, CoD just does little tweaks to its formula every time. Of course, any CoD fan would tell you that as a result of them, for example BO II plays very differently to MW2, but the changes aren't as drastic as Reach's armor abilities, DMR bloom or movement cutbacks or 4's loadouts and "power weapon killstreaks". In a nutshell, if you enjoyed BO 1, it's likely that you'll enjoy Ghosts too. But if you enjoyed Reach, going to 4 isn't as easy.

 

So, I think Activision have good enough reason to keep things similar with every installment. It's not in annual releases - since, like 2005, CoDs were developed by multiple teams and each title was developed for at least two years. AW was probably around (in one way or another) since 2011, because Sledgehammer were confirmed to be in development of their own, standalone CoD back then. And Ubisoft show with AC that you can make significant changes even in smaller time frames. No, it's intentional to keep CoD same and it's not laziness - because CoD is more FIFA than GTA.

 

Do I like annual releases? Nah. Personally, I would have preferred if Activision supported some installment for several years and then just released a new title when they had enough changes to shake things up a little bit (imagine series going MW1 - MW2 - BOII, with nothing in between). And those insanely overpriced map packs are another load of bullsh*t. But I'm not really getting up in arms about either. I don't buy CoD every year and I don't buy map packs either. I feel EA do much more to damage to the industry than Activision. When I think about it, what do Activision have, other than CoD? Maybe Blizzard games, I guess, but that's more or less a detached arm of the company. If you don't play Activision games, you are more or less unharmed by their bad business decisions. But EA is much bigger and it's influence is much more far reaching.

Edited by SFPD officer
Killzone3265

admittedly all the campaigns were awesome

cod gets its horrible rep from its multiplayer, i somewhat hope they have things changed this time, maybe i'd consider buying the game

RyanBurnsRed

The first Call of Duty came out in 2003. October of this year will make 11 years since then.

It's still going strong. I don't see it ending any time soon. Like I said before, as long as the money keeps flowing in, there will be more games.

 

Infinity Ward just bought Neversoft. This is a sign things are not slowing down for COD. There will be a COD after Advanced Warfare, and another after that.

I know this, you know this, and anyone in denial knows this.

 

But what does COD say to Activision and other game devs?

That the casual market is very profitable.Look at Battlefield. These days it's a shadow of its former self. It's sad really.

 

Off topic:

 

 

Anything Activision and EA touches becomes cancer...and Destiny is being published by Activision..

 

What I wonder: What if Advanced Warfare is f*cking good? Basically since MW3 came out, CoD has gotten a f*ck load of sh*t, but AW's setting (2054, exoskeletons, cloaked drones) opens up a lot of gameplay possibilities like climbing walls in MP.

It could be. Sledge had a long time to work on on it and AW is the first cod to utilize the 3 year dev cycle. No cod has done that yet, so it could go both ways for all we know.

 

Everyone who's dissing AW for being the same thing is just doing it for e-willy points. The smart thing to do is wait and see gameplay. Again, it's the first game to have a 3 year dev cycle.

Edited by tuareg
  • Like 2

For me it has simply became too futuristic, I mean any further and it will become halo. Like, HOVERBIKES? What happened!

 

If they (whoever they is) released a game along the lines of world-at-war, I'd be hooked. However that might just be me, I'm a big fan of war movies and games that relate to real old school wars. WWI, WWII, Vietnam, etc.

 

Unfortunately most COD fans enjoy the modern stuff with insane flying mechanical dogs as a kill streak reward. sigh

Edited by tomuk3
Django Fett

It'll be the same sh*t every year until they change stuff up. Don't add superhuman perks, make it more about strategy, add vehicles and at least make it third person. Have we ever had a good third person tactical shooter for consoles, not talking about Gears of War either. Adding this stuff will scare off the little kids to their mamas and let the grown ups have a good game again. Kids are the number one reason they're doing so well because they don't have a mind of their OWN. They see their friends play it and they'll beg mum to buy the game for them or they'll keep crying every single f*cking day. That's why I moved on to Battlefield. The last CoD game I bought was that Call of Duty 3 though. Best game in the series hands down.

Edited by LilMcJohn

What really frustrates me is people hating on new CoD games because it's CoD. When the trailer was out, a top comment was ''I pauzed the video at 0:09 because the game already looked sh*t'', while at 0:09 the trailer didn't even start LOL. Seriously, we've seen 1 trailer of the Single Player and people are already bashing the Mutiplayer for being a re-skin of Ghosts.


It'll be the same sh*t every year until they change stuff up. Don't add superhuman perks, make it more about strategy, add vehicles and at least make it third person. Have we ever had a good third person tactical shooter for consoles, not talking about Gears of War either. Adding this stuff will scare off the little kids to their mamas and let the grown ups have a good game again. Kids are the number one reason they're doing so well because they don't have a mind of their OWN. They see their friends play it and they'll beg mum to buy the game for them or they'll keep crying every single f*cking day. That's why I moved on to Battlefield. The last CoD game I bought was that Call of Duty 3 though. Best game in the series hands down.

And it will lose them sales and the majority of their fanbase. CoD needs to stay with the small/medium sized maps and fast gun on gun gameplay because that's CoD's identity and the only think making it different from other FPS games. If you disagree, I suggest you stop going to any forum or topic CoD related and just play other games.

Edited by poklane

It'll be the same sh*t every year until they change stuff up. Don't add superhuman perks, make it more about strategy, add vehicles and at least make it third person. Have we ever had a good third person tactical shooter for consoles, not talking about Gears of War either. Adding this stuff will scare off the little kids to their mamas and let the grown ups have a good game again. Kids are the number one reason they're doing so well because they don't have a mind of their OWN. They see their friends play it and they'll beg mum to buy the game for them or they'll keep crying every single f*cking day. That's why I moved on to Battlefield. The last CoD game I bought was that Call of Duty 3 though. Best game in the series hands down.

 

You have a good point dude but it will never happen, all we can hope for is a new company to eventually come along and make a 3rd person shooter on XBONE / PS4 in the future? I remember 3rd person team tactical on MW2 and it was actually decent considering MW2 is an FPS.

 

At the end of the day it's all about business and COD producers probably has a secret target audience of 10-16.

Seen YouTube banner ads lately? More CALL OF DUTY to pleasure your senses....or whatever.

 

I never cared for 1st person gaming, it's a PC favorite more then anything, but I suppose you'll be curious nonetheless...even if you pretend to hate it, because I think there is a Love / Hate thing going on here.

 

The guys commented when GTA V smashed sales records last year, they were hoping to succeed in taking the record title back. I SURE hope NOT! hahahaha

I stopped playing these sh*tty games a long time ago.

 

That latest trailer for Advanced Warfare or whatever the f*ck they are calling it was probably one of the most cliché pieces of sh*t I have ever seen. Every god damn second of that was like any other game you have ever seen. Must include helicopters blowing up, falling off a ledge with one hand and looking down, a close up of some asshole's face to show how good their precious detail is. Dramatic audio cues to go with the black fade-outs on multiple 3-5 second slow motion clips.

 

It makes me want to throw the f*ck up.

 

They just follow a pathetic script every time and it is tiresome to say the least.

 

It is hilariously predictable, as soon as cod hit modern times and threw out the historical aspect, it all just turned to sh*t. And I called it a mile off, "what next? Space?" and yep they were in f*cking space.

 

Call of duty is the worst thing to happen to gaming. Even after it dies there will still be some games trying to copy it's success and therefore turning what could be an interesting game into just a piece of sh*t glorified quick time event.

 

*cough* Homefront *cough*.

Edited by Daz

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 0 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 0 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.