In all seriousness how has it destroyed the modern FPS games? Not intended as a argument just a genuine question as to what makes you think that?
COD and bf4 have the fan base and are the 2 largest sellers. Pc FPS market killed itself making clones of those 2 games. The facts are hard to dismiss though. Cod makes 1bil minimum per game as does the battlefield games. No other FPS could post those numbers. The single players maybe generic crap but online is very different. Cod is much more fun to play solo online. Bf4 is a much better team experience. 2 totally different but massive markets none the less. Crysis has tried to be different with mixed results. When it was a free roam game the orginal at least was fun. Crysis 2 and 3 are pretty linier paths a lot like cod and bf4 single player. Online it's never attracted the money the other 2 have to push a more pro player base to it which leaves it with its own dedicated fan base. No other FPS worth mensioning, a lot of poor ports but nothing great. Need a new unreal torny style game but that's not going to happen.
I am not so sure it 'single handedly' destroyed the modern FPS. I don't think it is as simple as that. Sure, its success has made the industry lazy as why should they innovate when people will buy the same old same old in their millions. But, it is not the only game to have done this - we see sequel after sequel in every genre of game. I have six year old twin girls (no, don't go, I am going somewhere with this!) and the talk in the play-ground at their primary school from just about every single six to ten year old boy is about Call Of Duty Ghosts. This was the same a year ago with the previous instalment. The game is designed by marketing people to get them at this age and then as with most products keep them as they grow up selling to them as much and as often as possible. In 'the old days', gamers were older as technology was more expensive and more niche than it is now. As technology became more mainstream and gamers got younger, the marketing people simply switched to producing products aimed at a younger audience. So, I don't think you can blame the game, it is more a combination of things that happened at the same time - cheaper technology, younger audiences and an emphasis on making more profits rather than innovative games. Personally I won't be buying it but I am not going to chastise someone who does. If we want better, more interesting games then we need to support those developers that are making them and I think this is where Kickstarter and other crowd sourcing ventures can help. Without this alternative method of finding then I doubt we would ever have seen things like PA, Elite 4, Star Citizen, Obduction, Limit Theory, Tides of Numenera, Shroud of the Avatar, Godus etc. You can bet that it won't be long before CoD is on Kickstarter as it won't have escaped the notice of the big publishers about how successful it is, but there will still be room for other stuff.
My wifes brought it me downloading now, just reading comments in Steam there seem to be a lot disappointed because they can't play it. A lot can't launch the multiplayer and if they do graphics are like COD 3 not MW3 but COD 3.
We're this far in, and nobody has mentioned the 6GB RAM requirement yet? I couldn't believe it when I heard it. You can't run it if you have less than 6GB of RAM. Even though the game verifiably only uses about 2GB. It's not a big deal to most people, I guess, now that 8GB is the enthusiast gaming standard (despite being totally unnecessary), but it does indicate something of the attitudes at work behind this game's marketing and sale, attitudes I find a bit discomforting. edit - while we're talking about the discomforting undertones to this game's release, at least they managed to wedge a backup booth babe with a generous cleavage into one of the trailers this time. That should make female gamers feel included, right? (In before allegations that women don't fight in wars/don't play video games: tons of women do both. Call of Duty is an unrealistic sausagefest.)
There are some who can't run it with 16GB, suppose it just needs a little time for them to get it right. Just wish when games are released they would at least start.
The game only uses around 2.5Gb for itself but it takes my total system ram usage to over 6.5Gb whilst playing. What is funny is that they have released the actual recommended specs and they are just stupidly high for how this game looks and performs. Recommended System Requirements: OS: Windows 7 64-Bit / Windows 8 64-Bit CPU: Intel® Core™ i5 – 680 @ 3.6GHz RAM: 8 GB RAM HDD : 40 GB HD space Video: NVIDIA® GeForce™ GTX 760 @ 4GB Sound: DirectX® compatible sound card DirectX®: DirectX® 11 Internet: Broadband connection and service required for Multiplayer Connectivity. Internet connection required for activation. So going by that, if you have a graphics card with less than 4Gb of ram you are not going to run it properly, so even the likes of the GTX 780 or AMD 7950/70's won't run it properly but a 4Gb card will run it fine. The graphics after playing the game look no better than the Xbox 360's graphics and the draw distance etc is pathetic and they seem to have, put a shine around the edges of most things. This is the first COD game that I actually regret buying.
This. Some articles have speculated that the absurdly inflated sys reqs are motivated by a kind of pissing contest - a desire to be ostensibly as graphically "advanced" as Batttlefield 4. A system requirements arms race, if you will. And plausibly the start of a larger slippery slope among AAA game titles in which huge system requirements are seen as a good thing rather than a bad thing. Which is a terrifying and dumb scenario, but I wouldn't put it past some publishers to think that way.
First impressions from me runs fine single player, multiplayer and I think extinction looks ok. Took a long time to download but finally got there. I think the multiplayer graphics could have been better. This game is definetely not worth paying £94.99 for
I know this is just a small part, but is the game really that bland all the time? Are millions of people paying more than £90 for this experience? To run around from spot to spot, get told what to do and intantly die if you deviate an inch from the path they chose for you? It's like the devs are not even trying to create something remotely good, or fun. People called Dear Esther an un-game, but at many points in the vid CoDGhosts seems to be just as interactive... At least in DE you could choose where you walked. (But it did not have a dog, so there's that)
Seems to be pretty much what most single player FPS's are these days. If you like it then fair enough. I guess most people buy it for the online because then they can insult people without getting punched and make racist, sexist and homophobic comments without getting arrested - must be fun.
lol jedra. Most people buy it to shoot there friends in the head on private clan servers when relaxing away from the team centric bf4. Personally own both this and bf4. Dont personally play single player fps anymore, They are all the same without exeption please go here there is 1 route to location. Even crysis has started following this example. Its made a new record for entertainment product on day 1 launch sales of 1billion dollars so I dout activision will change much if anything for its next launch.
To be fair, my tongue-in-cheek comments could be aimed at any online game unless you are in your own server and then it depends on who your friends are! I agree with you with regard to most FPS games - too much ordering about and being told exactly what to do just in case you accidentally discover how small the corridor is that you are allowed to walk in! I think most FPS games have more in common with a side scrolling platformer and everything else is just an illusion. Online experience may vary (TM) though and usually you have a bit more room to manoeuvre. There's a market for it though there's no doubt and as I said in an earlier post, just about every child in my kid's primary school is talking about it. Live and let live I say and everyone that enjoys it does for a reason. Just because it's not my bag doesn't mean to say I begrudge those that do enjoy it. I like Arma and anything with an open world and there are plenty of people who don't! Vive la difference!
See, I think games like Tomb Raider get it right. They're still linear as hell, but it's overt and clearly corridored by the environment. You have to proceed along the cliff because you can't climb it; you can't go back across the bridge because it's collapsed; you have to get out of the house via the only route because it's on fire, and so on. The corridor is necessary and logical. Whereas in CoD, the corridor is often arbitrarily carved out of locations that reasonably should be more open-ended, like city streets and forests. The original reasons for corridor design are obvious - budget and dev time limitations meant that realistically open-ended maps were just too difficult to pull off. Those excuses are pretty much void now that their budget is roughly the GDP of a small nation. The other reason is the difficulty of getting a player to be where you want them to be and look where you want them to look for the story/mission to unfold intelligibly for them - but Crysis proved that there are ways around that problem. And then immediately unproved the point in the sequels, because money.
