I thought it was 60s only, but some of the armament you get your hands on does originate from later, like the Styer, CZ75 and G11. (And utterly fails to explain why a CIA officer would be carrying a Czech handgun FROM THE FUTURE.)
For reference, Operation 40 was 1962 (at least in our world), and IIRC the final mission takes place in 1968, but I could be mistaken there.
Spoiler: Click to ViewPHA+TWFzb24gZ29lcyBvZmYgcmVzZXJ2YXRpb24gcm91Z2hseSBKYW51YXJ5IDMwLCB0aG91Z2ggSSd2ZSBubyBpZGVhIGV4YWN0bHkgaG93IG11Y2ggdGltZSBsYXBzZXMgYmVmb3JlIHRoZSBmaW5hbCBtaXNzaW9uLCBpdCB3b3VsZG4ndCBtYWtlIHNlbnNlIHRoYXQgaXQncyBtb3JlIHRoYW4gYSBjb3VwbGUgbW9udGhzLCBwcm9iYWJseSBhIGZldyB3ZWVrcy48L3A+
I noticed some of the weapons didn't fit the time period either. The final mission might take place in 1968. It's been awhile since I played it.
I did some neurotic checking, and it's almost interesting. The game runs April 17, 1961[1] - February 26, 1968. (Not counting the WWII flashback sequences.) The main menu, however, plays from a separate interrogation that occurs sometime after October 1978. And is completely unconnected with the rest of the game.
Hopefully it's explained in Black Ops II, I sure as shit can't make any logical sense of it.
[1] I fucked up, and mixed the dates for the Bay of Pigs with the Cuban Missile Crisis... somehow. Sorry.
GundamSentinel: I ask: what do you want from Treyarch and Activision other than what they are doing now? Do you want them to make games like Journey?
That's a huge hyperbole, and if to you innovation is changing the genre of a franchise then I can't think of any way your argument can be taken seriously.
Call of Duty had improvement and innovation. CoD4 was an improvement compared to CoD2, whether you like WWII or modern conflicts. MW2 and 3 are not any improvement (it seems like the general consensus is that CoD4 is still superior) and they only innovate on certain things that don't make the game better.
Example: the engine still has the same bugs and the multiplayer still has the same unbalance and spawn issues. Maybe that should have improvement (unlikely) or innovate their mechanics. They don't. They innovate in areas like killstreaks and weapons and all that.
MW2 is still what I would love to have in a first person shooter, but in my personal opinion it's so broken that it could only be enjoyable some times - and I just gave up on trying to like it.
imahobbit4062: Black Ops only takes place in the 60's and 70's. It never branches into the 80's or 50's.
I thought it was 60s only, but some of the armament you get your hands on does originate from later, like the Styer, CZ75 and G11. (And utterly fails to explain why a CIA officer would be carrying a Czech handgun FROM THE FUTURE.)
For reference, Operation 40 was 1962 (at least in our world), and IIRC the final mission takes place in 1968, but I could be mistaken there.
The game is complete non-sense. Apparently Mason participated in the assassination of J. F. Kennedy but it was Lyndon B. Johnson who escalated the Vietnam war.
That means that Mason would have to kill JFK before he went on those missions on Vietnam. It didn't make any sense to me.
Let's face it, the CZ75 is regarded as one of the best handguns in the world and the CIA used whatever the hell they want before lobbying became so widespread.
Also, if killed/captured having an American pistol would identify him.
The part with the G11 makes the least sense. It has a ridiculously complex mechanism that makes it unsuitable to be sent to combat unless you train every soldier to become a watchmaker.
It also uses caseless ammunition which is a stupid idea. The casing helps cooling down the weapon because most of the heat is transferred to the brass, and ejecting it allows that energy to dissipate into the air instead of into the firearm itself.
I think the G11 making an appearance on the game is more unrealistic than the CZ75.
He probably doesn't, he's probably just, in contrast to you, figured out that popular opinion is what counts and what makes something good or bad. Both of those are inherently subjective, so if we even want to TRY and be objective, if you say CoD is a bad game you are inherently wrong, the numbers prove it.
Aren't you meant to try and prove something, with actual proof that it's good or bad? Not that that's my complaint but what you are saying is hardly objective. Your evidence will have to be convincing unlike 'because it's popular', which doesn't mean jack shit to me and everyone else your trying to convince.
I wonder if that is sheepish to believe somethings good just because it's popular. No offence, but it seems like it.
All in all, I think Sober Thal just really likes the game and is trying to defend any way he can.
Aerosteam 1908: The campaign was the most far-fetched of them all and the multiplayer was like MW2's but worse.
No it wasn't. The multiplayer that is. Mainly because it wasn't horribly broken in terms of balance, like MW2, and featured a ton more variety than MW2 ever offered.
Of course I can't disagree on the far-fetched-ness of the single player, but honestly I didn't mind that at all. I had quite a good time with it, and despite what many haters say I liked it how Black Ops wasn't one of those "shitbrown shooters" people rile against these days. I also liked the fact that they picked a different setting for once. The Cold War era is pretty under-used.
jaoblia: Its the 3rd time they've released it, save for a new campaign its the same mechanics, levels, and modes. Also the sheer amount of gibbering insane 10 year olds online threatening to lay your mother thrice.
BArely ever encountered them, you must just be unlucky because I play a lot and most people I knwo/spoke to have my experience rather than yours. The rest is accurate to a degree, they aren copies but they are pretty similar though ops did some cool things and is a pretty enjoysble game plus by Cod standars it is pretty innovative, which is pretty tragic, not sure why it gets all the hate.
He probably doesn't, he's probably just, in contrast to you, figured out that popular opinion is what counts and what makes something good or bad. Both of those are inherently subjective, so if we even want to TRY and be objective, if you say CoD is a bad game you are inherently wrong, the numbers prove it.
Aren't you meant to try and prove something, with actual proof that it's good or bad? Not that that's my complaint but what you are saying is hardly objective. Your evidence will have to be convincing unlike 'because it's popular', which doesn't mean jack shit to me and everyone else your trying to convince.
I wonder if that is sheepish to believe somethings good just because it's popular. No offence, but it seems like it.
All in all, I think Sober Thal just really likes the game and is trying to defend any way he can.
You're missing the point. THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE. Thus what the majority says is the closest we have to anything objective, thus you are wrong by majority rule. You aren't wrong as a matter of fact, you are wrong because your definition of good doesn't fit the VAST majorities definition of good. THAT is the point.
Racism and Sexism also aren't OBJECTIVELY bad, we've just decided that they are now, just like we were once of the opinion that it is fine.
So far I think good points have been made, but this hasn't answered by question. This because I worded it wrong. Here is a more revised version: Why have long-time CoD fans who buy the same rubbish every year hate black ops but love all of the other games?
Also, the people saying everything after CoD4 should've been DLC are clearly talking out of their arse, perfect example of mindless hate. There are changes to every title that you would have to actually play to understand (which as you can tell, most people who bitch about it don't actually play it).
All in all, it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.
They add a short new story campaign, tweak the multiplayer, add new maps and maybe expand upon the coop a bit, depending on the game.
Look at Modern warfare and now look at Modern Warfare 2, are yu seriously trying to tell me there's enough of a difference there to warrant two separate games?
I own both, what has changed that makes MW:2 not a total waste of my money?
Hell it's actually worse than an update because to keep up the facade of it being a new game they reset all my progress and got rid of the maps I enjoyed before they proceeded to make no noticeable changes to the gameplay beyond killstreaks, a change so small I'd have been annoyed if they'd tried to sell it as an addition to the original game. The spec ops and story, that's legitimate DLC territory. Maybe even an expansion. Enough change for being two iterations down the line from Cod4? Not in the slightest.
They don't add anywhere near enough new content to be considered new games. I believe they added even less to Modern Warfare 3, however I've only played with other peoplebecause I refuse to waste more money than I have already.
Also, the people saying everything after CoD4 should've been DLC are clearly talking out of their arse, perfect example of mindless hate. There are changes to every title that you would have to actually play to understand (which as you can tell, most people who bitch about it don't actually play it).
All in all, it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.
They add a short new story campaign, tweak the multiplayer, add new maps and maybe expand upon the coop a bit, depending on the game.
Look at Modern warfare and now look at Modern Warfare 2, are yu seriously trying to tell me there's enough of a difference there to warrant two separate games?
I own both, what has changed that makes MW:2 not a total waste of my money?
Hell it's actually worse than an update because to keep up the facade of it being a new game they reset all my progress and got rid of the maps I enjoyed before they proceeded to make no noticeable changes to the gameplay beyond killstreaks, a change so small I'd have been annoyed if they'd tried to sell it as an addition to the original game. The spec ops and story, that's legitimate DLC territory. Maybe even an expansion. Enough change for being two iterations down the line from Cod4? Not in the slightest.
They don't add anywhere near enough new content to be considered new games. I believe they added even less to Modern Warfare 3, however I've only played with other peoplebecause I refuse to waste more money than I have already.
You must not play very many sequels or Add-Ons if you think that's insubstantial in comparison to almost all the other ones. Most sequels do little more then put on a new coat of paint, a new feature or two and a new story.
EcksTeaSea: Because using the same formula over and over is a crime to gamers, even though the formula is good and millions of people enjoy the game.
But it's not a good formula, and why pay $60 every 6 months (more if you pay for DLC) to play Call of Duty when you can play any other generic war fps game for free?
Also, the people saying everything after CoD4 should've been DLC are clearly talking out of their arse, perfect example of mindless hate. There are changes to every title that you would have to actually play to understand (which as you can tell, most people who bitch about it don't actually play it).
All in all, it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.
They add a short new story campaign, tweak the multiplayer, add new maps and maybe expand upon the coop a bit, depending on the game.
Look at Modern warfare and now look at Modern Warfare 2, are yu seriously trying to tell me there's enough of a difference there to warrant two separate games?
I own both, what has changed that makes MW:2 not a total waste of my money?
Hell it's actually worse than an update because to keep up the facade of it being a new game they reset all my progress and got rid of the maps I enjoyed before they proceeded to make no noticeable changes to the gameplay beyond killstreaks, a change so small I'd have been annoyed if they'd tried to sell it as an addition to the original game. The spec ops and story, that's legitimate DLC territory. Maybe even an expansion. Enough change for being two iterations down the line from Cod4? Not in the slightest.
They don't add anywhere near enough new content to be considered new games. I believe they added even less to Modern Warfare 3, however I've only played with other peoplebecause I refuse to waste more money than I have already.
You must not play very many sequels or Add-Ons if you think that's insubstantial in comparison to almost all the other ones. Most sequels do little more then put on a new coat of paint, a new feature or two and a new story.
Most sequels offer much more substantial changes that's my issue, I don't play anything that actually offers less. Modern warfare shortchanges you on content. Categories don't matter, when your changes to the multiplayer of a multiplayer focused game amount to "we changed the perk system and let you guys pick what killstreaks you got" Why are you releasing a new game? It's a rip-off and that annoys me to no end.
A short story campaign and some coop missions are not enough of a change to warrant a new game and that's pretty much all there is.
Call of Duty isn't the only game doing this, I don't buy any game that I percieve to be doing this, CoD is just the biggest and most obvious offender.
They add a short new story campaign, tweak the multiplayer, add new maps and maybe expand upon the coop a bit, depending on the game.
Look at Modern warfare and now look at Modern Warfare 2, are yu seriously trying to tell me there's enough of a difference there to warrant two separate games?
I own both, what has changed that makes MW:2 not a total waste of my money?
Hell it's actually worse than an update because to keep up the facade of it being a new game they reset all my progress and got rid of the maps I enjoyed before they proceeded to make no noticeable changes to the gameplay beyond killstreaks, a change so small I'd have been annoyed if they'd tried to sell it as an addition to the original game. The spec ops and story, that's legitimate DLC territory. Maybe even an expansion. Enough change for being two iterations down the line from Cod4? Not in the slightest.
They don't add anywhere near enough new content to be considered new games. I believe they added even less to Modern Warfare 3, however I've only played with other peoplebecause I refuse to waste more money than I have already.
You must not play very many sequels or Add-Ons if you think that's insubstantial in comparison to almost all the other ones. Most sequels do little more then put on a new coat of paint, a new feature or two and a new story.
Most sequels offer much more substantial changes that's my issue, I don't play anything that actually offers less. Modern warfare shortchanges you on content. Categories don't matter, when your changes to the multiplayer of a multiplayer focused game amount to "we changed the perk system and let you guys pick what killstreaks you got" Why are you releasing a new game? It's a rip-off and that annoys me to no end.
A short story campaign and some coop missions are not enough of a change to warrant a new game and that's pretty much all there is.
Call of Duty isn't the only game doing this, I don't buy any game that I percieve to be doing this, CoD is just the biggest and most obvious offender.
Go ahead and name a few games where you consider the changes more substantial. Oh, but let's keep things remotely fair and stick to games that have about the same dev time.
imahobbit4062: Black Ops only takes place in the 60's and 70's. It never branches into the 80's or 50's.
I thought it was 60s only, but some of the armament you get your hands on does originate from later, like the Styer, CZ75 and G11. (And utterly fails to explain why a CIA officer would be carrying a Czech handgun FROM THE FUTURE.)
For reference, Operation 40 was 1962 (at least in our world), and IIRC the final mission takes place in 1968, but I could be mistaken there.
The game is complete non-sense. Apparently Mason participated in the assassination of J. F. Kennedy but it was Lyndon B. Johnson who escalated the Vietnam war.
That means that Mason would have to kill JFK before he went on those missions on Vietnam. It didn't make any sense to me.
The Vietnam stuff happens in '68. The key here is it's built around the Tet Offensive. That much is more or less coherent. Though it requires that he was able to assassinate Kennedy undetected, which, apparently he did. Though, IIRC, some of the email on the computer suggests that he was in fact outed sometime after '68.
ElPatron: Let's face it, the CZ75 is regarded as one of the best handguns in the world and the CIA used whatever the hell they want before lobbying became so widespread.
Also, if killed/captured having an American pistol would identify him.
It's not my preference, but I'll agree about it. The only problems are, of course, he's carrying a gun FROM THE FUTURE, and a carrying a Warsaw Bloc weapon in Hong Kong in 1968 would have been a very bad idea. If captured he wouldn't be identified as CIA, true, he would most likely be identified as a Soviet allied agent. A Browning HP, would have been a much better choice, given the location and time frame, though, of course the HP isn't available in full auto (to my knowledge).
ElPatron: The part with the G11 makes the least sense. It has a ridiculously complex mechanism that makes it unsuitable to be sent to combat unless you train every soldier to become a watchmaker.
It also uses caseless ammunition which is a stupid idea. The casing helps cooling down the weapon because most of the heat is transferred to the brass, and ejecting it allows that energy to dissipate into the air instead of into the firearm itself.
I think the G11 making an appearance on the game is more unrealistic than the CZ75.
Given that the first G11s didn't enter production until 1990? (I checked, I thought it was 80s) Yeah, quite a bit.
Caseless ammo itself, isn't actually a stupid idea, but the technology to actually support the concept isn't there yet.
The CZ75 makes sense as something a CIA op would carry anytime after 1989, but in 1968, when the weapon wouldn't even be designed for another 7 years, and would have been verboten under common sense in NATO territories for a few years after that, it's a bit strange.
For me, it was a variety of reasons. But I will admit it is a high quality game before I start. Okay, here goes: I played cod4 on the PC, with a clan, using a tactical mod, and we played very seriously, but always as a team. It was great fun. I skipped cod5 but decided to buy mw2, however I bought it for xbox instead. The first thing I noticed was that the community sucked, so I made the connection to the game. I noticed my friends didn't play as a team at all, everyone just competed for kills and didn't care about the win. I disliked this and made the connection to the game. BlackOps then was the last chance I gave the series. I hated the campaign. Flashbacks IMO are for talentless writers. The twist at the end sucked IMO. And the game mechanics weren't changed. So I essentially paid for a shit campaign and the same multiplayer on different maps.
So it was the last game in the series I bought. I also don't like the idea of throwing my money at a company to buy something that is almost the same as something I already own.
theonlyblaze2: I don't hate it. If anything, I love the CoD franchise. I think this comes from the fact that I have yet to pay more than a 6 dollar rental fee for one since Call Of Duty 2.
Six dollars? It took you more than a weekend to beat? I pretty much had all the play value done with in a single redbox rental. It's not like the game could have helped it. It's a crap game with a short story and horrid interface. People rag on ODST all the time, but I'd put that game ABOVE Black ops, MW2, MW3 and WaW. I'd probably put CoD4 above it, but only back when it was sold for 39.99, back before it got popular.
Go ahead and name a few games where you consider the changes more substantial. Oh, but let's keep things remotely fair and stick to games that have about the same dev time.
I'm going to quote my last post at you because I feel it's easier than responding properly.
Call of Duty isn't the only game doing this, I don't buy any game that I percieve to be doing this, CoD is just the biggest and most obvious offender.
No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.
I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.
See below for a much better answer, full of games I have not played :P
Also, the people saying everything after CoD4 should've been DLC are clearly talking out of their arse, perfect example of mindless hate. There are changes to every title that you would have to actually play to understand (which as you can tell, most people who bitch about it don't actually play it).
All in all, it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.
They add a short new story campaign, tweak the multiplayer, add new maps and maybe expand upon the coop a bit, depending on the game.
Look at Modern warfare and now look at Modern Warfare 2, are yu seriously trying to tell me there's enough of a difference there to warrant two separate games?
I own both, what has changed that makes MW:2 not a total waste of my money?
Hell it's actually worse than an update because to keep up the facade of it being a new game they reset all my progress and got rid of the maps I enjoyed before they proceeded to make no noticeable changes to the gameplay beyond killstreaks, a change so small I'd have been annoyed if they'd tried to sell it as an addition to the original game. The spec ops and story, that's legitimate DLC territory. Maybe even an expansion. Enough change for being two iterations down the line from Cod4? Not in the slightest.
They don't add anywhere near enough new content to be considered new games. I believe they added even less to Modern Warfare 3, however I've only played with other peoplebecause I refuse to waste more money than I have already.
You must not play very many sequels or Add-Ons if you think that's insubstantial in comparison to almost all the other ones. Most sequels do little more then put on a new coat of paint, a new feature or two and a new story.
Okay let's take Bioshock and Bioshock 2: They added a new story, changed the character you play so they could add new mechanics, added new mechanics, added new enemies, changed the way you save little sisters, added multiplayer to the game and finally (the least important feature) changed around some of the tonics and plasmids.
Now let's look at Bioshock 2 and Bioshock Infinite: They added a new story, COMPLETELY revamped the art style, changed the area you play in, gave more character to the characters, completely changed the enemy roster, added a 'hard mode', revamped plasmids/tonics and added/removed mechanics.
Now for Overlord and Overlord 2: They added mounts for the minions, allowed the use of ballista and boats, made the game less repetitive, fixed the choices that you made so that you were always evil instead of being chaotic good, allowed the player to play as a minion instead of the overlord, allowed the resurrection of minions, made the hub more interesting.
Finally i'll give Smash Bros Melee and Smash Bros Brawl as an example: They added and removed characters, added more bosses, added new game modes, made it easier to unlock characters to make the game less limiting, added new items (most notably assist trophies and final smashes), revamped how the player gets trophies, added coop support for previously only single player modes and last but definitely not least, ADDED AN ACTUAL STORY MODE.
Compare any of these to "They add a short new story campaign, tweak the multiplayer, add new maps and maybe expand upon the coop a bit, depending on the game." and tell me that they're on the same scale of changes. Portal 2 gets free DLC that adds more to the game than what Call of Duty does.
Well, I'm not sure if it's been said already but...
I dropped out of the CoD series after World at War (which was also my first foray). But it's not because "COD IS SHIIIIT" like strongly opinionated say, I just don't gel with these kind of games. I was never a big fan of the Medal of Honour series either, and the Battlefield games I like are 1942 and 2, but not the story based off-shoot series (haven't played 3 yet).
I liked blops, not loved it. I played a friends copy and even dabbled in the multiplayer until the first level of prestige. I found it a bit hit and miss, a little vanilla, a small bit plain... decidedly average. But not bad. I thought the story was quirky, but in a good way... I hate it when games that can't hold a serious note without shooting themselves in the foot try to play a plot straight. Blops went crazy, and I think it worked for it.
The gunplay has always been the highlight to the series. It just feels tight and well refined... though in MP, I find that the devs spend little time going over balance. I dread the day they try micro transaction schemes as it will be DEFINITELY a pay to win scenario.
Black Ops is way better than MW2, but the campaign sucks.
The MP which is what matter to me had great gameplay, Treyarch does better gameplay than IW, CodWaw > Cod4 and BO > MW2 gameplay wise.
However there were problems, like high Ping, I had around 40-50 ping when the game released but after some patched it raised to 100! The maps were also worse than those in Cod4 and CodWaw.
Still a great game, and miles better than either MW2 or MW3 which were mediocre. Stupid gameplay.
Go ahead and name a few games where you consider the changes more substantial. Oh, but let's keep things remotely fair and stick to games that have about the same dev time.
I'm going to quote my last post at you because I feel it's easier than responding properly.
Call of Duty isn't the only game doing this, I don't buy any game that I percieve to be doing this, CoD is just the biggest and most obvious offender.
Yearly franchises are almost all rip-offs. CoD is simply the biggest offender.
No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.
I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.
I'm just trying to make you into a example as to point out that it's silly that this is the go to complaint about CoD when it could be said for nearly all sequels. It's strange because there are better, more befitting complaints. I was hoping that you could become my jumping off point to say, that it appears to me, that it isn't the substance of the sequels but the substance in comparison to it's popularity or in other words ''I think people just expect more from it because it is so popular, they are holding it to higher standards.'' Sadly you didn't indulge my wish xD
Anywho, yes, go ahead and elaborate, I am honestly curious if these unnamed games really have more substance or if you are just biased. But do know, seeing as I have no dea what games you are talking about, I don't know if I will actually be able to comment, it depending on me having played them or atleast having substantial information in order to comment.
They add a short new story campaign, tweak the multiplayer, add new maps and maybe expand upon the coop a bit, depending on the game.
Look at Modern warfare and now look at Modern Warfare 2, are yu seriously trying to tell me there's enough of a difference there to warrant two separate games?
I own both, what has changed that makes MW:2 not a total waste of my money?
Hell it's actually worse than an update because to keep up the facade of it being a new game they reset all my progress and got rid of the maps I enjoyed before they proceeded to make no noticeable changes to the gameplay beyond killstreaks, a change so small I'd have been annoyed if they'd tried to sell it as an addition to the original game. The spec ops and story, that's legitimate DLC territory. Maybe even an expansion. Enough change for being two iterations down the line from Cod4? Not in the slightest.
They don't add anywhere near enough new content to be considered new games. I believe they added even less to Modern Warfare 3, however I've only played with other peoplebecause I refuse to waste more money than I have already.
You must not play very many sequels or Add-Ons if you think that's insubstantial in comparison to almost all the other ones. Most sequels do little more then put on a new coat of paint, a new feature or two and a new story.
Okay let's take Bioshock and Bioshock 2: They added a new story, changed the character you play so they could add new mechanics, added new mechanics, added new enemies, changed the way you save little sisters, added multiplayer to the game and finally (the least important feature) changed around some of the tonics and plasmids.
Now let's look at Bioshock 2 and Bioshock Infinite: They added a new story, COMPLETELY revamped the art style, changed the area you play in, gave more character to the characters, completely changed the enemy roster, added a 'hard mode', revamped plasmids/tonics and added/removed mechanics.
Now for Overlord and Overlord 2: They added mounts for the minions, allowed the use of ballista and boats, made the game less repetitive, fixed the choices that you made so that you were always evil instead of being chaotic good, allowed the player to play as a minion instead of the overlord, allowed the resurrection of minions, made the hub more interesting.
Finally i'll give Smash Bros Melee and Smash Bros Brawl as an example: They added and removed characters, added more bosses, added new game modes, made it easier to unlock characters to make the game less limiting, added new items (most notably assist trophies and final smashes), revamped how the player gets trophies, added coop support for previously only single player modes and last but definitely not least, ADDED AN ACTUAL STORY MODE.
Compare any of these to "They add a short new story campaign, tweak the multiplayer, add new maps and maybe expand upon the coop a bit, depending on the game." and tell me that they're on the same scale of changes. Portal 2 gets free DLC that adds more to the game than what Call of Duty does.
Yeah no, I'll consider what you have to say when you stop boiling down one title while making other titles to appear to have more substance ;)
Also, my first double post, all because you think it's ok to cheat, you should be ashamed of yourself :P
Go ahead and name a few games where you consider the changes more substantial. Oh, but let's keep things remotely fair and stick to games that have about the same dev time.
I'm going to quote my last post at you because I feel it's easier than responding properly.
Call of Duty isn't the only game doing this, I don't buy any game that I percieve to be doing this, CoD is just the biggest and most obvious offender.
Yearly franchises are almost all rip-offs. CoD is simply the biggest offender.
No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.
I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.
I'm just trying to make you into a example as to point out that it's silly that this is the go to complaint about CoD when it could be said for nearly all sequels. It's strange because there are better, more befitting complaints. I was hoping that you could become my jumping off point to say, that it appears to me, that it isn't the substance of the sequels but the substance in comparison to it's popularity or in other words ''I think people just expect more from it because it is so popular, they are holding it to higher standards.'' Sadly you didn't indulge my wish xD
Anywho, yes, go ahead and elaborate, I am honestly curious if these unnamed games really have more substance or if you are just biased. But do know, seeing as I have no dea what games you are talking about, I don't know if I will actually be able to comment, it depending on me having played them or atleast having substantial information in order to comment.
Alright, it's nothing rare, I just mostly play rpgs and rts games. Speaking of which:
The Shivering Isles adds as much to Oblivion as MW:2 does to CoD4, 30+ hours of new single player content, plus new items, areas voiced characters etc... Probably some of the best content in the game as well.
Company of heroes opposing fronts doubles the number of playable sides in the muliplayer whilst adding a a longer campaign than Modern Warfare:2
The sins of a solar empire expansions really change up the game, also they did a major, major patch fairly soon after release that probably changed the gameplay more than Mw -> MW:2.
The fallout 3 DLC adds more content to the game than modern warfare sequels.
I guess it depends how you value it as well, it could be argued that you get 100s of hours from the minor changes from each CoD sequel but in that case is it realyl the new content that's making you play or is it simply that you enjoy the gameplay?
I did really enjoy Cod4, it's just that the sequels haven't changed anything so after being thoroughly dissapointed by Modern Warfare:2 I stopped buying them. I really hate people calling things sequels unless they're definite on the game and CoD just feels like an ever growing series of cash-ins.
Monoochrom: Yeah no, I'll consider what you have to say when you stop boiling down one title while making other titles to appear to have more substance ;)
Also, my first double post, all because you think it's ok to cheat, you should be ashamed of yourself :P
Are you serious? They added new maps, a new (still extremely short) campaign, new guns, new perks and maybe a game mode or two to the multiplayer, that's it. They even add map packs to the games so that's half of the next game put in right there.
It's not 'boiling down one title'. It's you being blind, throwing away your money then trying to justify it in a thread.
The campaign was very poor. Lots of places with endlessly respawning enemies. It's also completely unfair that enemies can use cover and all you can do is stand behind it and get shot because there's no way to properly hide. There's also no way to properly peek out of cover, again because you can't even go into cover in the first place. You can just stand behind a wall or crouch behind a desk and hope that part of you isn't sticking out for the enemies to get shot (usually there is, though). Yeah, that game fucking sucked on Insanity or whatever they called the hardest difficulty.
Also, the story was god-damn stupid with a really bad ending.
I suppose the only redeeming feature would be the multiplayer, but I didn't find that interesting enough to keep the game.
Evilpigeon: Yearly franchises are almost all rip-offs. CoD is simply the biggest offender.
No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.
I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.
Except each CoD game is in development for about two years. Activision has multiple developers making the games so a new one can come out each year, but each game gets about two years to be made. Just like a lot of other games.
You "I hate CoD because it's popular" people always love to rattle on about that yearly release schedule while ignoring the facts, don't you?
All in all, I think Sober Thal just really likes the game and is trying to defend any way he can.
I thought the game was okay, but the mindless hate over it just pisses me off. If the voices of the internet were right on, then the game wouldn't have sold nearly as well.
Evilpigeon: Yearly franchises are almost all rip-offs. CoD is simply the biggest offender.
No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.
I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.
Except each CoD game is in development for about two years. Activision has multiple developers making the games so a new one can come out each year, but each game gets about two years to be made. Just like a lot of other games.
You "I hate CoD because it's popular" people always love to rattle on about that yearly release schedule while ignoring the facts, don't you?
Doesn't that just make the lack of change between iterations worse? I don't see your point. I don't hate it because it's popular I dislike what they're doing with the series because I hold it up to the same standards as I do other games.
Monoochrom: Yeah no, I'll consider what you have to say when you stop boiling down one title while making other titles to appear to have more substance ;)
Also, my first double post, all because you think it's ok to cheat, you should be ashamed of yourself :P
Are you serious? They added new maps, a new (still extremely short) campaign, new guns, new perks and maybe a game mode or two to the multiplayer, that's it. They even add map packs to the games so that's half of the next game put in right there.
It's not 'boiling down one title'. It's you being blind, throwing away your money then trying to justify it in a thread.
No, you're being intellectually dishonest. You actually bring up for instance how Bioshock 2 has a new PC, yet that somehow doesn't count when it's Call of Duty? Sorry to break it to you, but I don't need your validation to justify a purchase, because I don't really care what you think outside of the scope of this discussion, you being dishonest only makes me care less.
Like I said, be honest about things and then I might consider giving you the time of day with a real response like I am now going to with Evilpigeon, until you do so, I personally consider you a waste of my time, so don't bother responding unless you are interested in really discussing the matter.
I'm going to quote my last post at you because I feel it's easier than responding properly.
Yearly franchises are almost all rip-offs. CoD is simply the biggest offender.
No, most games are not yearly franchises, they're simply the ones with the most iterations.
I have several games with expansions that added more to the original game than CoD sequels do. I don't play all that many fps game so I can't really give you like for like but I can expand on that if you like.
I'm just trying to make you into a example as to point out that it's silly that this is the go to complaint about CoD when it could be said for nearly all sequels. It's strange because there are better, more befitting complaints. I was hoping that you could become my jumping off point to say, that it appears to me, that it isn't the substance of the sequels but the substance in comparison to it's popularity or in other words ''I think people just expect more from it because it is so popular, they are holding it to higher standards.'' Sadly you didn't indulge my wish xD
Anywho, yes, go ahead and elaborate, I am honestly curious if these unnamed games really have more substance or if you are just biased. But do know, seeing as I have no dea what games you are talking about, I don't know if I will actually be able to comment, it depending on me having played them or atleast having substantial information in order to comment.
Alright, it's nothing rare, I just mostly play rpgs and rts games. Speaking of which:
The Shivering Isles adds as much to Oblivion as MW:2 does to CoD4, 30+ hours of new single player content, plus new items, areas voiced characters etc... Probably some of the best content in the game as well.
Company of heroes opposing fronts doubles the number of playable sides in the muliplayer whilst adding a a longer campaign than Modern Warfare:2
The sins of a solar empire expansions really change up the game, also they did a major, major patch fairly soon after release that probably changed the gameplay more than Mw -> MW:2.
The fallout 3 DLC adds more content to the game than modern warfare sequels.
I guess it depends how you value it as well, it could be argued that you get 100s of hours from the minor changes from each CoD sequel but in that case is it realyl the new content that's making you play or is it simply that you enjoy the gameplay?
I did really enjoy Cod4, it's just that the sequels haven't changed anything so after being thoroughly dissapointed by Modern Warfare:2 I stopped buying them. I really hate people calling things sequels unless they're definite on the game and CoD just feels like an ever growing series of cash-ins.
I have only played Fallout 3 out of those titles and to be fair, I had asked for sequels, not DLC, because I didn't play any of it's DLC either. For that reason I'll just use New Vegas.
New Vegas added a new story, a new map, survival features that are entirely optional and thus, don't really count for much if you ask me. Did I forget anything substantial? In comparison to CoD 4, MW2 added Spec Ops of which the majority could be played in SP or MP, it added a new Story which, in contrast to News Vegas, builds upon it's predecessor, added new Perks, new Maps, secondary weapons that are not pistols (which is a Game-Changer in MP) a abundancy of new Killstreaks and it also generally added new weapons. In list form:
New Vegas:
- New Map - New Story - Survival Features
Modern Warfare 2:
- New Map(s, although the size differences should be noted) - New Story (albeit a continuation) - A Co-Op/SP Hybred Mode - Substantial changes to the Multiplayer formula
So, I summed up the MP differences (which I personally don't consider a necessity, that's nice of me considering CoD is mainly a MP game) and it still has one point more on the list. Now all you could really bring up are things that I may have potentially forgotten about New Vegas or the effort around making the singular featuresm which would probably be very debateable considering that we (I assume) both have no formal education or experience in Game Developement.
I agree that CoD is a cash-in, I just don't find this particular argument to be all that fitting. I would like people to get the right arguments out there, then maybe I'd have a chance at seeing another CoD I'd consider worthy of full-price, currently I wouldn't pay more then 20 bucks on release, which consequently is what I do and is also barely over typical expansion price.
Well, in part it's because it's popular. Very popular. Almost everything popular gets almost equal amounts of hate. Take Justin Bieber, Twilight and Harry Potter. A lot of people love something, a lot of people either don't care or dislike it. However those people have to hear about it to no end. They get sick of living with something that they don't want to hear about.
You'll see the same when it comes to people being bullied. Sometimes they just snap and go berserk. Call of Duty and anything else that is popular works the same way with a few exceptions. This is something that it's completely acceptable to vent your feelings about. It also occurs from several channels, sometimes at the same time. People react by starting to hate something they didn't have strong feelings about in the start.
I'm sure there's tons of other reasons, but I think what I just say may be a part of it.
With that Avatar this statement is just downright funny.
Hopefully it's explained in Black Ops II, I sure as shit can't make any logical sense of it.