Anyone else think there are too many CoD releases?

foFox

I have always liked the Call of Duty series, but recently it turned out to be like one of those neverending chains i.e. the Sims or Fifa. I mean.... IT`S A FU** 7th already? I feel like there is a new one every year, I reckon that it is a bit too much, apart from a few new weapons and maps there isn`t much difference between MW and MW2, and now they are going to relase this Black Ops even sooner, thats a bit of a rip off in my opinion, I can assure you all that its gonna be the same story, a few new maps and weapons and another cheap story line, oh... I`ve almost forgotten, also a 50-60E price tag on it. I don`t know why they cannot just do a good job for like 3 years and make something that will blow my mind? ( I forced myself to even finish the story in MW2 )

Magill

foFox wrote: »

I have always liked the Call of Duty series, but recently it turned out to be like one of those neverending chains i.e. the Sims or Fifa. I mean.... IT`S A FU** 7th already? I feel like there is a new one every year, I reckon that it is a bit too much, apart from a few new weapons and maps there isn`t much difference between MW and MW2, and now they are going to relase this Black Ops even sooner, thats a bit of a rip off in my opinion, I can assure you all that its gonna be the same story, a few new maps and weapons and another cheap story line, oh... I`ve almost forgotten, also a 50-60E price tag on it. I don`t know why they cannot just do a good job for like 3 years and make something that will blow my mind? ( I forced myself to even finish the story in MW2 )

in fairness to them... cod 1 + 2 + 3 are very different to mw1 + mw2 and then w@w + BO's (By the looks of it) are again very different from the other 2 groups.

MW2 alone has sold something like 20million copies.


The problem with cod, is that there is just no real competition on consoles for the market that cod dominates (Online fps games) And the only game that can even touch it is BF.

Unlike on the PC where there are alot of really good FPS games (Quakelive, UT, CS, BF, TF2 etc).

Thor

foFox wrote: »

I have always liked the Call of Duty series, but recently it turned out to be like one of those neverending chains i.e. the Sims or Fifa. I mean.... IT`S A FU** 7th already? I feel like there is a new one every year, I reckon that it is a bit too much, apart from a few new weapons and maps there isn`t much difference between MW and MW2, and now they are going to relase this Black Ops even sooner, thats a bit of a rip off in my opinion, I can assure you all that its gonna be the same story, a few new maps and weapons and another cheap story line, oh... I`ve almost forgotten, also a 50-60E price tag on it. I don`t know why they cannot just do a good job for like 3 years and make something that will blow my mind? ( I forced myself to even finish the story in MW2 )

I love all call of duty games(except number three), But i can't imagine playing the same cod for more than a year.

People get bored easily and if activision can make more money by releasing a new game every year, Then why not?

r3nu4l

Split from CoD Black Ops thread.

I do think that CoD 4 MW and MW2 are very different. For a start the single player campaign in MW2 is more cartoony and less 'realistic' than CoD4.

Online both are completely different too imo. The look different, feel different and play different.

What improvements would you like to see to the franchise to make it different?

Shammy

I like mw2 , not as much as cod4 or cod 2 , i didnt like cod 3 or cod waw which makes me wonder about black ops, for the xbox halo reach is out soon , spring next year we have gears 3 (hoping for a big improvement on 2) and the one i'm most looking forward to , the next ghost recon.

Predator_

Its virtually the only game I (and alot of people tbh) play online so no, I dont think once a year is too much.

Twilightning

Of course there are too many games, there's too much money to be made out of the franchise. It is Activision afterall. And unfortunately the FPS genre isn't as susceptible to over-saturation as rhythm games are. Games like Guitar Hero aren't selling as well anymore because people are buying new peripherals for the same gameplay. (It's getting a lot better with the release of Harmonix's Rock Band 3, I can't imagine Activision ever trying to spice things up)

But as long as there are hordes upon hordes of 12 year old kids willing to cry to their ignorant parents to buy them over 18s games time and again then there won't ever be a need to stem the flow of these shooters that require little or no innovation over time to keep their target audience happy.

krudler

Doesnt bother me, I'd prefer if the map packs were cheaper or if there was more content than just a few new maps like new guns or perks or camo or something. But like was said MW1 and 2 are fairly different and BO is going to be different too, same basic principle, shoot everyone else but in fairness how different can you make a FPS without it being classed as a FPS anymore? Its not like thay can have a kart racing minigame or a side scrolling beat em up with CoD characters (although that would fcuking rock lol) . EA have been releasing the same game with FIFA for nearly 20 years, just newer graphics and slight tweaks every year, same with the Smackdown games, the last good one was Here Comes The Pain and that was back in 2004, its just the same thing rehased every year.

Leeg17

krudler wrote: »

Doesnt bother me, I'd prefer if the map packs were cheaper or if there was more content than just a few new maps like new guns or perks or camo or something. But like was said MW1 and 2 are fairly different and BO is going to be different too, same basic principle, shoot everyone else but in fairness how different can you make a FPS without it being classed as a FPS anymore? Its not like thay can have a kart racing minigame or a side scrolling beat em up with CoD characters (although that would fcuking rock lol) . EA have been releasing the same game with FIFA for nearly 20 years, just newer graphics and slight tweaks every year, same with the Smackdown games, the last good one was Here Comes The Pain and that was back in 2004, its just the same thing rehased every year.

Here comes the pain was the first (and last) Smackdown game I bought. I remember being so excited about the body damage that was introduced. 4 man elimination chamber, ah those were the days . Brock Lesnar ftw, I used to do the F5 on my mates trampoline, even copied him when he bent his neck left and right after he did that finishing move. :D

I don't mind the 1 CoD game a year as long as it stays fresh. But I would agree about the map packs being too expensive, and the fact that there was 2 this time round.

krudler

Possibly a 3rd on the way before BO comes out too..

Leeg17

You're kidding? Do you have a link?

They're really milking it at this stage, I won't be buying it that's for sure, will be restrcited to weekends only, unless I can get it working at college (I connected the LAN cable and it said I had an incorrect MAC address during the network connection test)

krudler

No its just been rumoured, may not make sense as people will put the money towards BO instead of spending another 13 quid on more rehashed COD4 maps

Twilightning

krudler wrote: »

Doesnt bother me, I'd prefer if the map packs were cheaper or if there was more content than just a few new maps like new guns or perks or camo or something. But like was said MW1 and 2 are fairly different and BO is going to be different too, same basic principle, shoot everyone else but in fairness how different can you make a FPS without it being classed as a FPS anymore? Its not like thay can have a kart racing minigame or a side scrolling beat em up with CoD characters (although that would fcuking rock lol) . EA have been releasing the same game with FIFA for nearly 20 years, just newer graphics and slight tweaks every year, same with the Smackdown games, the last good one was Here Comes The Pain and that was back in 2004, its just the same thing rehased every year.

Developing and distributing a video game is a business at the end of the day (Which I wish sometimes wasn't the case) and with Call of Duty's massively loyal, sheepish fanbase there's little incentive for the studios that produce these games to really add anything groundbreaking or unique, they just have to do the bare minimum necessary to pass it off as a new game.

One great example I can give of this is Rainbow Six Vegas 2. The engine, a lot of the weapons and maps were simply just recycled from the previous Vegas game. One of the only new features they added in was a bloody sprint button. The campaign, new weapons and new maps simply could have been added to the last installment as DLC, but of course they wouldn't have made as much money this way, so it was just released as a new game instead. The example you made with the FIFA franchise too is another prime example of this. Bare minimum of changes made but just enough to pass it off as a new game, and the fans will eat it up regardless of its mediocrity.

I think the solution to this type of problem would be to just produce one, simple platform/engine within which new updates to the Call of Duty franchise could be added, sort of like how so many games are produced from the Source Engine. There'd be no need for any new FIFA or Call of Duty games because the copy you have now could be updated with new weapons, maps and campaigns since to my knowledge, the game engine hasn't changed at all for quite some time aside from a few tweaks here and there. But Bobby Kotick's sitting on his jewel-encrusted throne salivating at the prospect of how many more millions there are to be made from shoving one Call of Duty game out after another.

Unless the public at large do something to make the developers to wake up and start respecting them more than more profit, this will just continue for years to come. And sadly I think it more than likely will.

Barlett

I can see the Call of Duty releases slowly deteriorating in quality over the next few years. With the core Infinity Ward group gone off to form Respawn Entertainment I can see COD struggling. Afterall it was Infinity Ward that made COD what it is and I highly doubt Treyarch going on past performances will bring much improvement to the game with Black Ops.

Leeg17

Twilightning wrote: »

Developing and distributing a video game is a business at the end of the day ...... And sadly I think it more than likely will.

I was just writing that! :pac:

I agree with you. The fan base dictates to an extent what way the games are developed, after all it funds Activision. Most people , and by people I mean screechy voiced 12 year olds, don't care what changes are made, either to the content or game engine as long as the games are still being made.

Dcully

I can see the Call of Duty releases slowly deteriorating in quality over the next few years

Its already happened, with the exception of COD4 its gone downhill since the origional Call of Duty.
The skill required for COD 1 is vastly superior to the arcade tripe they are turning out recently.
One shot kills ONLY happened in COD1 when you got a headshot.
It was a proper title which the competitive gaming world loved, always a good sign even for casual gamers.
Anyone remember the bolt rifle only servers? simply epic and still going strong today for both COD1 and 2.
Having said that BO looks decent but none of us can really form a decent opinion just by watching youtube videos.

Twilightning

I meant to also ask, are they actually going to be charging people to play on top of people being already charged to play (Xbox Live)? This subscription rubbish I've been hearing is another reason games are going downhill. Too much money to be made!

Magill

Twilightning wrote: »

Developing and distributing a video game is a business at the end of the day (Which I wish sometimes wasn't the case) and with Call of Duty's massively loyal, sheepish fanbase there's little incentive for the studios that produce these games to really add anything groundbreaking or unique, they just have to do the bare minimum necessary to pass it off as a new game.

One great example I can give of this is Rainbow Six Vegas 2. The engine, a lot of the weapons and maps were simply just recycled from the previous Vegas game. One of the only new features they added in was a bloody sprint button. The campaign, new weapons and new maps simply could have been added to the last installment as DLC, but of course they wouldn't have made as much money this way, so it was just released as a new game instead. The example you made with the FIFA franchise too is another prime example of this. Bare minimum of changes made but just enough to pass it off as a new game, and the fans will eat it up regardless of its mediocrity.

I think the solution to this type of problem would be to just produce one, simple platform/engine within which new updates to the Call of Duty franchise could be added, sort of like how so many games are produced from the Source Engine. There'd be no need for any new FIFA or Call of Duty games because the copy you have now could be updated with new weapons, maps and campaigns since to my knowledge, the game engine hasn't changed at all for quite some time aside from a few tweaks here and there. But Bobby Kotick's sitting on his jewel-encrusted throne salivating at the prospect of how many more millions there are to be made from shoving one Call of Duty game out after another.

Unless the public at large do something to make the developers to wake up and start respecting them more than more profit, this will just continue for years to come. And sadly I think it more than likely will.

The thing is.... and im sure its the same with most people on this forum... i have logged something like... 20 days played on mw2... for an apparently "****" game, thats a fu<king lot. The only other games I've spent that amount of time playing is counterstrike (we're probably talking YEARS!) team fortress and wow.

Therefore its hard to really say that the game isn't awesome... for all the imbalances and bugs in MW2, I've had some serious fun playing it over the last year.

MW2 had ALOT of changes compared to MW1... it is hardly even comparable to what FIFA and other sports games do, if your talking about the story mode.... Nobody cares about the single player in cod (Even tho it is short... its still quite epic imo).

The only other developer that i think can make a game good enough to compete with cod is valve... unfortunately they're not very interested in console games. So for the time being.... BRING ON BLACK OPS !!! WOOOOO !

Twilightning

Magill wrote: »

The thing is.... and im sure its the same with most people on this forum... i have logged something like... 20 days played on mw2... for an apparently "****" game, thats a fu<king lot. The only other games I've spent that amount of time playing is counterstrike (we're probably talking YEARS!) team fortress and wow.

Therefore its hard to really say that the game isn't awesome... for all the imbalances and bugs in MW2, I've had some serious fun playing it over the last year.

I've 23 or so days logged on Modern Warfare 2 myself, although some people might liken it to more of an addiction than anything else. :pac: I've had good fun playing it too but I also haven't raged at a game as much as I have with MW2. I'm not saying it's a bad game at all, just sometimes you have to wonder if it warrants the high price tag. Even buying CoD4 preowned is fairly expensive.

Magill wrote: »

MW2 had ALOT of changes compared to MW1... it is hardly even comparable to what FIFA and other sports games do, if your talking about the story mode.... Nobody cares about the single player in cod (Even tho it is short... its still quite epic imo).

The game itself had many changes but what I'm trying to say is the changes were nothing that warranted a completely new game. New character models, weapon skins, maps, killstreaks and a few graphic tweaks are all things that could be added to a game via a (albeit a very large) patch. But Activision would never allow that precious revenue slip away from them.

Magill wrote: »

The only other developer that i think can make a game good enough to compete with cod is valve... unfortunately they're not very interested in console games. So for the time being.... BRING ON BLACK OPS !!! WOOOOO !

I wouldn't be going so far as to say the Call of Duty franchise is some sort of perfect, unstoppable monster. There's many other high-selling franchises out there that can compete. Halo is one that instantly springs to mind simply because it's in the FPS genre, but other huge ones that come to mind outside the genre are Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Gears of War, Sonic the Hedgehog, Mario, etc.

Magill

Twilightning wrote: »

I've 23 or so days logged on Modern Warfare 2 myself, although some people might liken it to more of an addiction than anything else. :pac: I've had good fun playing it too but I also haven't raged at a game as much as I have with MW2. I'm not saying it's a bad game at all, just sometimes you have to wonder if it warrants the high price tag. Even buying CoD4 preowned is fairly expensive.

Pretty sure its the same price as every other ps3/xbox game on release ?(least up here in the north). Considering i've bought over 30 games since i got mw2 and have finished most with less than a days game time... i would say MW2 is diffo worth at least the same price tag as other games.

Preowned game prices can only be blamed on the retailer

The game itself had many changes but what I'm trying to say is the changes were nothing that warranted a completely new game. New character models, weapon skins, maps, killstreaks and a few graphic tweaks are all things that could be added to a game via a (albeit a very large) patch. But Activision would never allow that precious revenue slip away from them.

New story mode
Tons of co-op missions (Which are awesome, if you haven't tried them with a friend... do it)
New character models
New guns
New maps
New killstreaks/perks and deathstreaks
New gametypes
Updated graphics

yeah..... That sounds like a completely new game to me I dont think any sane developer in the world would publish that as a "Update"

I wouldn't be going so far as to say the Call of Duty franchise is some sort of perfect, unstoppable monster. There's many other high-selling franchises out there that can compete. Halo is one that instantly springs to mind simply because it's in the FPS genre, but other huge ones that come to mind outside the genre are Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Gears of War, Sonic the Hedgehog, Mario, etc.

I was being specific to the FPS online genre (By far the most popular online gaming genre on consoles). Halo will never compete with CoD, because its an exclusive to the xbox, same with GoW.

NTMK

I dont think so because the games are always different from there predocessor thanks to the 2 year cycle each dev gets

Jev/N

Twilightning wrote: »

I'm not saying it's a bad game at all, just sometimes you have to wonder if it warrants the high price tag. Even buying CoD4 preowned is fairly expensive.

Amazon, new, MW2 was about €37.

Procasinator

Leeg17 wrote: »

[...] unless I can get it working at college (I connected the LAN cable and it said I had an incorrect MAC address during the network connection test)

Offtopic, but I'm guessing you have a laptop for which you gave a MAC address to the accomodation you are staying in?

In the Xbox network preferences you can set a alternate MAC address: set this to the MAC address you supplied (probably the same as your laptop), and you will get over that hurdle.

There is a chance, however, that the network will be so locked down and you will not be able to play.

Nuri Sahin

krudler wrote: »

Doesnt bother me, I'd prefer if the map packs were cheaper or if there was more content than just a few new maps like new guns or perks or camo or something. But like was said MW1 and 2 are fairly different and BO is going to be different too, same basic principle, shoot everyone else but in fairness how different can you make a FPS without it being classed as a FPS anymore? Its not like thay can have a kart racing minigame or a side scrolling beat em up with CoD characters (although that would fcuking rock lol) . EA have been releasing the same game with FIFA for nearly 20 years, just newer graphics and slight tweaks every year, same with the Smackdown games, the last good one was Here Comes The Pain and that was back in 2004, its just the same thing rehased every year.

This.

senordingdong

NTMK wrote: »

I dont think so because the games are always different from there predocessor thanks to the 2 year cycle each dev gets

You mean one year cycle.
There is a new one every year.

Leeg17

Procasinator wrote: »

Offtopic, but I'm guessing you have a laptop for which you gave a MAC address to the accomodation you are staying in?

In the Xbox network preferences you can set a alternate MAC address: set this to the MAC address you supplied (probably the same as your laptop), and you will get over that hurdle.

There is a chance, however, that the network will be so locked down and you will not be able to play.

Firstly, I'm on Xbox.

I didn't give a MAC address to the accomodation? At least I don't think I did. When I first moved in all you had to do was stick in a LAN cable into the wall and you're set. Some díckwad was torrenting and they put a 500mb daily limit on it, as well as a password. So when I plug in the LAN cable, it detects it. I go into Mozilla and a web page pops up, in which I have to enter lee.gormley (username), and my password. Then I go online.

Would it be as easy as sticking in the LAN cable, and trying to go into the web browser on the Ps, and entering in the name/password as I normally would on the laptop?

I'm moving up next Sunday so I'll try that then and see what happens.

Kingpin187

"You mean one year cycle.
There is a new one every year. "

- No, he said 2 year cycle EACH DEVELOPER gets. Treyarch do one this year, IW the next and so on..

shawpower

In fairness, I'm coming into this very late. I've played lots of FPS games, but never online before MW2.

But for what it's worth, I don't see a problem with it. Yes Activision are pushing out a new game every year, but it's being done by different developers. From looking at videos, there is a world of a difference between all of COD4, WAW and MW2 in relation to gameplay. Lots of different perks/guns that change up the way the games were played (some good, some bad).

The introduction of Spec Ops is also a great idea, and again with BOps they've included new stuff to the COD world like the gambling mode, and gun game. I know some of this stuff has come from CSS, but everything takes ideas from somewhere else.

Leeg17

Yes it's money grabbing, new game every year and a few map packs. I don't really mind as long as it's kept fresh.

Kingpin187

Ill prob still buy the yearly games, but not the map packs, as Ive always gotten bored with the games and their bugs etc long before the new maps got released.

Theres just no post-release support for them. Bugs and game breaking glitches take forever to get fixed (if at all), nothing much in way of DLC except maps, they have only JUST added a Theatre mode for Black Ops.

when it comes to a good FPS that will last years, with top class support its all about Halo.

Bungie are the kings of post-release support. They are still chopping and changing playlists for H3, 3 years after its release. Not to mention the theatre mode and comprehensive stats etc.

COD developers are limited tho, in the sense that there is no point pulling out all the stops for a long-supported game if they know a rival release will be following their own, doesnt make sense.

shawpower

Kingpin187 wrote: »

Ill prob still buy the yearly games, but not the map packs, as Ive always gotten bored with the games and their bugs etc long before the new maps got released.

Theres just no post-release support for them. Bugs and game breaking glitches take forever to get fixed (if at all), nothing much in way of DLC except maps, they have only JUST added a Theatre mode for Black Ops.

when it comes to a good FPS that will last years, with top class support its all about Halo.

Bungie are the kings of post-release support. They are still chopping and changing playlists for H3, 3 years after its release. Not to mention the theatre mode and comprehensive stats etc.

COD developers are limited tho, in the sense that there is no point pulling out all the stops for a long-supported game if they know a rival release will be following their own, doesnt make sense.

You are right on this side. With the game being "outdated" in a year, there isn't the long term view taken I guess. Which is a pity, because the games themselves are very good. I mean if you take out the OMA/DangerClose/NoobTube and Commando, you've really got a very good game. One that I'd happily play for a long time. Swapping around with the gamemodes helps alot.

Stuff like the rock glitch on Fuel doesn't bother me at all, as I'm never caught more than once by anyone there. But it does show a lack of interest by the company that they can't fix such a minor issue.

Dcully

Bungie are the kings of post-release support.

Sorry that goes to Valve, then again they dont give a ****e about consoles which is fine by me
Seriously though they are in a league of their own in the fps world.
Im constantly getting updates,extra maps,extra content,class updates for all my valve games on steam and all for free none of this paying for DLC Bull

Magill

Dcully wrote: »

Sorry that goes to Valve, then again they dont give a ****e about consoles which is fine by me
Seriously though they are in a league of their own in the fps world.
Im constantly getting updates,extra maps,extra content,class updates for all my valve games on steam and all for free none of this paying for DLC Bull

^ Like i said before... if only they put some effort into a console game. They are indeed in a league of their own in terms of support/updates and just general game balance and design.

shawpower

In fairness though, it's in Valve's interest to keep people playing PC games on Steam, as that's where they make their money from. It's like you saying X pub is great because they have really good value food. True, but they are making their money from another revenue stream and your footfall is what's important.

edit.
Or that's my understanding anyway.

Dcully

shawpower wrote: »

In fairness though, it's in Valve's interest to keep people playing PC games on Steam, as that's where they make their money from. It's like you saying X pub is great because they have really good value food. True, but they are making their money from another revenue stream and your footfall is what's important.

edit.
Or that's my understanding anyway.

Indeed but they have always done so long before steam.

shawpower

Dcully wrote: »

Indeed but they have always done so long before steam.

Fair enough. Even the way they bundled five games in the Orange Box shows the way they treat their fans. Can you imagine Activision doing that?? :eek::rolleyes:

krudler

Magill wrote: »

^ Like i said before... if only they put some effort into a console game. They are indeed in a league of their own in terms of support/updates and just general game balance and design.

Isnt Portal 2 being developed on the PS3?

Magill

I meant a proper multiplayer game.

I know you can play team fortress 2 on the xbox. But it is still the same version that was released on launch, and the gameplay is a bit too fast for consoles.

But yeah, i think they've said they have 3 big projects that we'll hear about in the next year.

Magill

I meant a proper multiplayer game.

I know you can play team fortress 2 on the xbox. But it is still the same version that was released on launch, and the gameplay is a bit too fast for consoles.

But yeah, i think they've said they have 3 big projects that we'll hear about in the next year.