Call Of Duty: Advanced Warfare | News/Info/Speculation

jantheman91

Looks like another polished turd that caters to the masses of public noobs.

16 months until the Big Boys Treyarch make another decent game.

*sigh*

C14N

Nuri Sahin wrote: »

Tony Hawk series as well.

But, after that year Tony Hawk clearly tried to replicate the success of Guitar Hero. The next game was Ride which had an expensive add on preipheral that didn't work and they tried it again with Shred the next year. Both of them were utterly dismal in terms of quality and sales though so they basically canned the series since then.

retrogamefan wrote: »

Why do they insist on making one every year... If they spent some time and didn't rush to make a new one every single year it'd be a better series... Stop just stop it right now

Money. The bulk of the target audience don't care one way or another about the integrity or originality, it's just something where they know what they're getting and they liked it last time. Also, Activision's CEO specifically stated a few years back that they weren't interesting in games that "don't have the potential to be exploited every year on every platform with clear sequel potential".

fergus1001

dreamers75 wrote: »

Someone I know made a mod for MOHAA that killed you if you stayed still for 15 seconds. Campers annoyed him also.

Dont see the problem with campers myself (play BF) you have to camp to defend the objective just whiney little kids cry about it.

Whats wrong with staying in the same spot(kill cam off) ?

Battlefield is a more team based tactical game and requires a degree of camping and running from point to point and also at least on pc you can limit snipers ect

In contrast to call of duty that is meant to be a run and gun shooter so if you give people enough room in a level they will sit up with a sniper and camp and the one or two people that do run and gun will get absolutely raped and thus will be encouraged to camp

At least in the older cods the levels were smaller so if one prick was camping chances were someone was gonna come behind him and knife him while he had tunnel vision

gizmo

fergus1001 wrote: »

I wasn't talking about the engine

But what a new engine would bring is better graphics and a new look and feel to the game

Spice things up a little

The problem being, having noticeably better graphics would necessitate dropping the target frame rate from 60fps. Since both this and the general responsiveness of the game are two core tenants of the series, it would never be a viable option. As I said on another thread, there'll be a new engine when the current gen platforms become the primary development platforms (read: biggest sellers) until then they'll just stick with the iterative improvements we've seen over the last number of entries.

As for changing the look and feel of the game, well I'd wager that if they did that they'd be criticised for changing the look and feel of an established series. :pac:

Azza

So whats the general consensus on which COD had the best singleplayer and which COD had the best multiplayer?

Retr0gamer

For single player the first game and modern warfare are superb. The rest are meh. Wasn't all that fond of CoD2.

fergus1001

Retr0gamer wrote: »

For single player the first game and modern warfare are superb. The rest are meh. Wasn't all that fond of CoD2.

World at war and cod 4 had the best single player

And cod 4 and mw2 for multiplayer

And waw again fo co op zombies I would play Der rise all day round 43 is my best

Cuddlesworth

fergus1001 wrote: »

World at war and cod 4 had the best single player

And cod 4 and mw2 for multiplayer

And waw again fo co op zombies I would play Der rise all day round 43 is my best

The one with the warping knife?

Captain Chaos

Azza wrote: »

So whats the general consensus on which COD had the best singleplayer and which COD had the best multiplayer?

CoD 2 and CoD4 MW for single player hands down. CoD4 MW for the MP.

Azza

I loved COD 1 when it first came out but when I went back to it a few months ago I found it dated pretty badly.

fergus1001

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The one with the warping knife?

Ah yeah made for some good "****ing hacker " killcam commentary but mw2 was a refinement of the improvements made in cod 4 multiplayer and then the invations stopped instead we just got a gimmick weapon thrown in to make it look interesting ala black ops 1 and the tomahawk


I love zombies though and I want it to go back to how it was in waw Der rise that was a high point for me in the call of duty series

So much so that me and my group of friends played a few rounds of mw2 and then we went back and played zombies for the rest of the night fun times

MadYaker

I've always hated the multiplayer in COD. But I really enjoyed the single player in MW2 and 3. I might pick up blops 2 if the single player in that is good as well, it must be cheap by now.

TerrorFirmer

MadYaker wrote: »

I've always hated the multiplayer in COD. But I really enjoyed the single player in MW2 and 3. I might pick up blops 2 if the single player in that is good as well, it must be cheap by now.

Parts of it are good, but all in all its pretty weak. The first Black Ops was much better, one of my favorite COD single players. Ghosts is the only one I've actively disliked (COD3 was weak enough as well but that was a rush job forced on Treyarch so I don't blame them for it)

Retr0gamer

I found world at war really boring to be honest. All the treyarch cod games did nothing for me except the first black ops which while not great was still fun.

Cuddlesworth

fergus1001 wrote: »

Ah yeah made for some good "****ing hacker " killcam commentary but mw2 was a refinement of the improvements made in cod 4 multiplayer and then the invations stopped instead we just got a gimmick weapon thrown in to make it look interesting ala black ops 1 and the tomahawk

I stopped at MW2, so I can't comment on the rest. But between the two of them, I found the first game had a heavy emphasis on immediate non-stop action with perks that made it difficult for the other team. The second had a emphasis on gimmicks, such as the warping knife and placed the killstreaks into a position where they didn't just infer a advantage, they instead dominated the game. Most games were decided within the first 30 seconds.

Retr0gamer

The whole rewarding the player or team that is doing well just does not work for me, it just makes the whole thing frustrating to be on the losing team and makes it hard for less skilled players to get into the game. Really the further you get ahead e harder it should be to keep that position. Something like classic capture the flag, the more you are in the lead the more thinly spread you are and more resources you need to dedicate to defense and the more vulnerable your position is. Even stuff like mario kart where holding the lead position is very challenging since you get worse items, although that takes it to the wrong extreme in many cases.

I think titanfall handles this a lot better. Losing is actually fun with the mad dash to extraction being one of the best parts of the game.

jantheman91

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The whole rewarding the player or team that is doing well just does not work for me, it just makes the whole thing frustrating to be on the losing team and makes it hard for less skilled players to get into the game. Really the further you get ahead e harder it should be to keep that position. Something like classic capture the flag, the more you are in the lead the more thinly spread you are and more resources you need to dedicate to defense and the more vulnerable your position is. Even stuff like mario kart where holding the lead position is very challenging since you get worse items, although that takes it to the wrong extreme in many cases.

I think titanfall handles this a lot better. Losing is actually fun with the mad dash to extraction being one of the best parts of the game.

Less skilled players should be punished for being less skilled. That is the exact problem with Ghosts. It has been dumbed down to cater for the thumbless, and as a result leaves the skilled frustrated.

Black Ops 2 got it bang on the money. If you sucked - you got destroyed over and over again. If you can't improve/deal with it, you should probably find a new game.

C14N

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I stopped at MW2, so I can't comment on the rest. But between the two of them, I found the first game had a heavy emphasis on immediate non-stop action with perks that made it difficult for the other team. The second had a emphasis on gimmicks, such as the warping knife and placed the killstreaks into a position where they didn't just infer a advantage, they instead dominated the game. Most games were decided within the first 30 seconds.

I felt the exact same way. If you were playing with people only a little better than you, you were still getting completely destroyed because the killstreaks led to rewards that gave you more killstreaks.

jantheman91 wrote: »

Less skilled players should be punished for being less skilled. That is the exact problem with Ghosts. It has been dumbed down to cater for the thumbless, and as a result leaves the skilled frustrated.

Unless you're playing competitively, most people don't want to be either punished to the point of frustration or wiping the floor with others. There's no fun in a walkover for either side and good game design helps balance this in non-competitive environments, not exacerbate the situation.

Retr0gamer

It's not even the frustration factor, it just doesn't work for me in team multiplayer. If you find yourself in a dominant position it should be harder to hold that position rather than easier. If you are skilled enough you should be able to hold that position.

What CoD does is totally destroy the whole risk reward system good games are built on.

muppetkiller

I recently bought BLACK OPS1 for the PC after loving it on the xbox. It's still the best Multiplayer experience imo .

It's still jam packed with servers and has the best Maps I think out of all the COD games.

It's something like 9.99 at the moment of those cd-key sites (non-russian ones too)

Cuddlesworth

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's not even the frustration factor, it just doesn't work for me in team multiplayer. If you find yourself in a dominant position it should be harder to hold that position rather than easier. If you are skilled enough you should be able to hold that position.

What CoD does is totally destroy the whole risk reward system good games are built on.

I do miss the nuke though. That really was a big "f" you to the other team.

Randall Floyd

This shouldn't be getting a 360 and PS3 release, it just confirms that it's another money making exercise rather than a genuine attempt to do something new and interesting with the franchise.

Potential-Monke

People are gonna bitch and moan constantly about CoD, regardless if it's an improvement or not. People have their mind made up about a new CoD game before it's released and if they do pick it up, they're starting with a negative view of it and that skews the view, even if the game is good.

I buy CoD every year, because i know what i'm getting. It's the Expendables of the gaming world, high intensity 'splosion after 'splosion, with a sometimes good story, good voice acting and pretty good visuals. I don't mind if it does nothing new, as long as it's entertaining. I will never expect a seriously deep or an award winning story. But it has it's moments, like (i'm gonna spoiler them)

crawling from the tank after the nuke going off, the hanging at the end of MW3, etc

.

The multiplayer is also expected to be pretty much the same, with perks and scorestreaks changing up the different games. If it keeps the intensity of the previous games and makes it enjoyable (which they are to me) then i'll lap it up.

However, Ghosts has taught me a lesson: don't buy the hardened edition on launch. I did for Ghosts and i played no more than a couple of weeks online before trading it in. Ghosts is the weakest in the series, and the MP is a mess. If Sledgehammer can avoid the mistakes IW did with Ghosts, it will sell like hotcakes.

And for people calling it Call of Duty: Crysis - What about it? It's not going to be the exact same, and a lot of games these days have parts of other games in them. It must be hard to make an FPS which tries to stay grounded in reality (exo-suits and camo are being tested irl) when there has been a massive back catalog of similar games, and if they went back to WW2 times, or even recent times, people would complain that it's a copy of X game.

_Kaiser_

Just saw the trailer on YT - gotta love Kevin Spacey!

Basically then this is House of Cards - Season 3: The Game

fergus1001

Potential-Monke wrote: »

People are gonna bitch and moan constantly about CoD, regardless if it's an improvement or not. People have their mind made up about a new CoD game before it's released and if they do pick it up, they're starting with a negative view of it and that skews the view, even if the game is good.

I buy CoD every year, because i know what i'm getting. It's the Expendables of the gaming world, high intensity 'splosion after 'splosion, with a sometimes good story, good voice acting and pretty good visuals. I don't mind if it does nothing new, as long as it's entertaining. I will never expect a seriously deep or an award winning story. But it has it's moments, like (i'm gonna spoiler them)

crawling from the tank after the nuke going off, the hanging at the end of MW3, etc

.

The multiplayer is also expected to be pretty much the same, with perks and scorestreaks changing up the different games. If it keeps the intensity of the previous games and makes it enjoyable (which they are to me) then i'll lap it up.

However, Ghosts has taught me a lesson: don't buy the hardened edition on launch. I did for Ghosts and i played no more than a couple of weeks online before trading it in. Ghosts is the weakest in the series, and the MP is a mess. If Sledgehammer can avoid the mistakes IW did with Ghosts, it will sell like hotcakes.

And for people calling it Call of Duty: Crysis - What about it? It's not going to be the exact same, and a lot of games these days have parts of other games in them. It must be hard to make an FPS which tries to stay grounded in reality (exo-suits and camo are being tested irl) when there has been a massive back catalog of similar games, and if they went back to WW2 times, or even recent times, people would complain that it's a copy of X game.

I was the same as yourself but the same thing every year has turned me off it and the lone soldier gameplay as well

Moved on to battlefield myself

jantheman91

C14N wrote: »

I felt the exact same way. If you were playing with people only a little better than you, you were still getting completely destroyed because the killstreaks led to rewards that gave you more killstreaks.



Unless you're playing competitively, most people don't want to be either punished to the point of frustration or wiping the floor with others. There's no fun in a walkover for either side and good game design helps balance this in non-competitive environments, not exacerbate the situation.

So what you're saying is there should be no skill-gap? That is the exact problem with COD Ghosts and is a major reason even public players absolutely hate it.

Black Ops II got it bang on the money. The game was developed with a skill-gap in mind and as a result those who weren't great struggled, and those who were good done exceptionally well. This is exactly how a multiplayer FPS should be - competitive or otherwise.

If you suck at a game, don't play it.

I'm dire at FIFA, but you don't see me complaining. I just don't play it.

C14N

jantheman91 wrote: »

So what you're saying is there should be no skill-gap? That is the exact problem with COD Ghosts and is a major reason even public players absolutely hate it.

Black Ops II got it bang on the money. The game was developed with a skill-gap in mind and as a result those who weren't great struggled, and those who were good done exceptionally well. This is exactly how a multiplayer FPS should be - competitive or otherwise.

If you suck at a game, don't play it.

I'm dire at FIFA, but you don't see me complaining. I just don't play it.

No, that's not what I'm saying. It needs to get a balance between being approachable for newbies and rewarding for skilled players, MW2 steers way too far into the latter to the point of being unfairly unbalanced. Call of Duty 4 and World at War both had some balancing issues, as do all games, but it was a lot better than MW2 was. You can even have games like Counter Strike or Team Fortress where there are some incredibly skilled players/teams who will wipe the floor with newbies but it still doesn't feel unfair because it doesn't pile extra rewards on you as soon as you start inching ahead.

Saying "if you suck, don't play it" is a cop out, everyone sucks at it at some point. I sucked at Guitar Hero once, but it had a fair difficulty curve that lets you gradually reach expert level. I sucked at Smash Bros once but because it was balanced and approachable, I got pretty good at it over time and at least when I play against others who aren't much good, I can give myself a handicap so it's still fun for them. It's really no fun when you sit down and play MW2 with some friends who are a little more skilled and as soon as you go just a few kills down, the entire thing just feels futile from that point onward. In non-competitive games, there should be chances to allow you to catch up even if you do go a bit behind, otherwise you're just spending 10 minutes playing a game you've already lost. Really good players should still be able to win comfortably, but the point is that they should have to be really good for that to happen.

Nuri Sahin

Azza wrote: »

So whats the general consensus on which COD had the best singleplayer and which COD had the best multiplayer?

COD4 and COD4.

Single player was just an all round fun experience with a wide range in type of of missions and the inclusion of arcade mode was a nice touch too. The characters while you wouldn't expect to be fleshed out like that in say RPG games for example, were still characters you still cared about somewhat. Some had recurring roles in future titles, but it was never the same really.

COD4's mutliplayer I'll always stand by in saying it's the most fun I've had playing an FPS game. It wasn't perfect and it needed tweaking by the devs as I said previously, but it was so close to run n gun perfection. Perhaps there's an element of sentiment due to the time I was playing COD4 too. I was in uni at the time and everyone I knew male wise was playing it (if not Halo) it seemed.

It's the only COD game I've kept. All the others I've either given away or traded in long ago. COD4 will remain, even if I may never turn on the PS3 again (I probably will at some point, but not for some time).

Nuri Sahin

fergus1001 wrote: »

Ah yeah made for some good "****ing hacker " killcam commentary but mw2 was a refinement of the improvements made in cod 4 multiplayer and then the invations stopped instead we just got a gimmick weapon thrown in to make it look interesting ala black ops 1 and the tomahawk


I love zombies though and I want it to go back to how it was in waw Der rise that was a high point for me in the call of duty series

So much so that me and my group of friends played a few rounds of mw2 and then we went back and played zombies for the rest of the night fun times

I always thought zombies was a bit over hyped, tbh. Maybe it's because I got into it late which didn't help, I don't know. I thoroughly enjoyed the over the top view zombie game however in Black Ops 1, probably because it reminded me of Smash TV on the SNES which I adored back in the day.

Nuri Sahin

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I do miss the nuke though. That really was a big "f" you to the other team.

The the addition of the nuke on MW2 and in turn MOAB in MW3 was a terrible idea. It was one of the main reasons people started camping in COD games. You'd get the occasional bad camper in COD4, but in MW2 it was something else. Not only for the nuke, but the chopper gunner, AC130, etc, etc.

It's the reason why in Black Ops I decided to just run UAV, counter UAV and the Blackbird, I just wanted to run n gun to my heart's content.