Gaming CODPLOPS: A Cynical History Of COD

I think this cod would be the last.... they have already run out of ideas.Its just so bland and boring, the same thing over and over again. The COD franchise is just soo overrated.

I prefer either BF series or UT2004

 

yep indeed, BF2142 is still great!

 

Has never been the point to inovate through as has been stated above it is the gaming equivalent of the blockbuster movie it is made to appeal to the widest demographic possible. Ask any of the general public to name a videogame and i reckon cod will be near the top of the list such is the brand recognition. This has the bonus of making it the game non-gamers will most likely buy their gamer friend/kids.

 

This is a pretty bad article i must admit. Especially when bit-tech gave MW2 a great score on the pc. You guys sound like a joke now.

This is almost as bad as that article where you guys said that Crysis was terrible but had given it a high score as well.

And don't even get me started on the accusation that CoD is responsible for the "state of the industry".

tl;dr
Bit-tech game reviews are a joke.

 

COD developers are lazy. You can't argue about that.
Look at EA at least they are trying new things with Crysis, BF3 frostbite. The gameplay or story may be innovative, but at least they push the engine. That engine becomes core for other games in the future. It moves thing forward. You may say they dumb Crysis down but at least they try something new, and it was a fun game. Graphics are well optimized (with patch). I can run it well on my old laptop yet still looks good.

The point of this article is the willingness of developers to push the industry forward. Given COD is the most profitable franchise yet they sit on that pile of cash and 'rewards' players with the same thing over and over again.... I call that lazy and irresponsible. Of course they have every right to be, but I vote with my money.

I save myself from the tired and tiring franchise, and bought 5 copies of Witcher 2 for everyone and my cats.

 

I forgot one point. You can pretty much forget about COD with new engine. It might be possible but not in the next few years. They will need it when the console release that's quite mandatory.

Their business strategy (yearly release) doesn't lend itself to adopting or creating new engine. The timeframe just isn't enough. It takes more than 3 years to create good and long lasting engine. Value make one and they are still using it, with frequent refinements. Unreal Engine 3 was long in the making. There's simply no room for COD studios to start making new engine if they want to continue with annual release.

So I can foresee a new engine next year, coming with new Console generation, and you can have that same engine for the next 8 or so years, and of course, 8 more Call of Duties.

 

The same CoD ranting as is evident on every forum of gamers across the world, of that I am certain. However, it is not without some merit. The various comments regarding CoD's part in the current state of gaming is a little unfair but not entirely untrue, I do believe that CoD has an extremely large slice of that particular pie, sharing a large chunk of it with Halo and Fifa (different genre yes but very guilty of the same rehashing) if I'm totally honest, there's many others but they are the main culprites I think. Let's be real here for a moment, there's no reason whatsoever that BO2 will be any different.

Now then, regarding the trailer for BO2 there's something which concerns me more than the lack of innovation and that is lack of imagination. I'm sure I saw dozens of various sci-fi elements that have been almost literally copied and pasted in. Stealth, Total Recall, T2, Crysis, Serenity/Firefly and many others which popped into my head and then left again when yet another one became apparent. Is this really what passes for new these days? Even before we get into the nitty gritty of the game itself we have it's overall visual style being completely rehashed and, effectively, copied from elsewhere; it doesn't really fill me with much confidence about how the gameplay will be.

Lastly, I have to make comment on the graphics. I totally agree with all of the comments about how games which have become favourites have been based on the quality of the gameplay and I am no different, but for a modern FPS genre graphics are a large part of things in my opinion; the style and setting of such games almost demands good looking scenery to enhance your delving into the worlds to enjoy and experience them. That trailer looks absolutely terrible by current standards and in the current generation making zero steps forward many, many years down the line is unacceptable to be fair, even the sequel to Nintendogs saw a massive graphical improvement regardless of whether it affects the gameplay or not.

P.S. For the record (before anyone jumps on me) I have played ALL CoDs from 1 up to and including MW3 and also have played all Halos and currently play BF3, my first foray into the series. In every respect (at least for what I like to find in a FPS game) BF3 is superior and the argument of 'people want a simple pick up and play experience' doesn't hold water either, both CoD and BF3 can be pick up and play or slower paced in my experience; you simply play it how you enjoy. The only draw for CoD over BF3 that I can see is for people to rack up xp and stats etc. without having to work to hard for it because you never have to go for more than 5 seconds without seeing an enemy, now that I've been stuck into BF3 I find I prefer to be able to actually plan things if I want to and not have to be instantly running around like a madman because someone will be up your ass before you can blink.

 

Spot article. Idiots will disagree and complain but they have to justify being mugged off, that's why they are so defensive of cod. I'm a bit bored of bf3 but also recognise the advancement it tries to bring. And its ten times the game mw3 was at 3/4 the price.

 

You realize that since MW2 we got BO and MW3 and the complaint is about BO2 being same thing again ?

 

Nonsense. Bit-Tech are not representative of JUST Joe's opinions. Joe should be allowed to be able to voice differing opinions from the rest of the editorial team. That doesn't invalidate his opinion or that of Bit-Tech as a whole in any way whatsoever.
I can't find the original review yet, but I'll have another look now - either way, it is the fact that there have been THREE games (two released, one announced) since MW2 that Joe says haven't moved the genre on, that he complains about.

 

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/2009/11/11/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-2-pc-review/1

To be fair, Joe part wrote the MW2 review which gave it 9/10.

 

That's completely irrelevant. Just because he gave MW2 a decent review in November 2009, doesn't mean that essentially the same game reskinned in 2012 will get a good review. One expects the sort of progression you'd get from BC2 to BF3.

 

CoD multiplayer is quake.

Battlefield multiplayer needs thought and cunning.

CoD is FIFA with guns.

End.

 

I didn't think 2142 had the same 'it' that BF2 had. Seemed to have lost something.

 

Well, he also gave Blops 8/10. If he was so bothered about the lack of progression and innovation in Cod, I think we should have heard it a little earlier than MW3.

He writes in the CODPLOPS article that:

But that's hardly represented in giving those titles 9 and 8 out of 10, and failing to mention this lack of innovation when those titles were released.

Contrast this with what he said when MW2 was released:

That doesn't sound like someone who would write a "Cynical History of Cod".

 

But he did write it. Fascinating isn't it? Even fans of the series are disgusted by what it's become.

 

<irony>Didn't you notice the new scoring scheme all around the world ? 5/10 is a total rubish game. 6/10 is a very bad game. 7/10 is a bad game. 8/10 is a average/a bit above bad game. 9/10 is a good game.10/10 is the super uber good game.

Anything bellow 9/10 is a nightmare for the game publisher and they don't want to see anything bellow 9 even for horrible games.</irony>

 

I actually liked COD: WaW.

 

Thanks for stating the obvious. We know the industry needs these games, because they continue to make money for it.

 

There was a progression from BC2 to BF3?