What happend to Call of Duty?

  • 64 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Edin899 (627 posts) -

I just watched the new trailer and there are a few things i noticed that really annoyed me.

- The way the Developers talk about their game, the guy must have said BRAND NEW at least 5 times. I feel like they are trying their hardest to replace the old infinity ward guys.

- Graphics and the gun sounds. I saw footage of this game before but everytime i look at it, i just can't get over how bad the game looks. And the gun sounds? Does every gun sound the same or is that just me? After hearing battlefield 3 this just sounds horrible.

- Game modes, i am already annoyed hearing KILL CONFIRMED 3 times in this video, wonder how it's gonna be when i get to play the game. And isn't that second game mode just the skull mode from halo where you hold the skulls?

- Custom game modes , Who gives a crap about this? How many people are actually going to use this? 95% of the people will pop in the game and go to matchmaking.

O and '' Create your own call of duty'' Really?

I am still not sure if i want to get this game. It does not have the same appeal as modern warfare 2 had for me. But if my friends get it...maybe.

EDIT:

Just watched a bit of the IGN live stream. I mean even the developers sound like they lost the passion. They talk about the gun sounds and the guy says the most generic thing '' sound design is close to my heart'' while all the weapons they use sound the same...

#2 Posted by yorro (558 posts) -

Battlefield happened.

#3 Posted by ABritishNerd (318 posts) -
@yorro

Battlefield happened.

Or at least became more popular.
#4 Posted by JacDG (2113 posts) -

I think the game looks perfectly fine from a graphical standpoint, at this point, the engine is pretty old and I'd honestly rather have the 60 frames per second. Guns sound pretty bad, especially compared to something like Battlefield, but the sound system in Call of Duty is pretty different, for instance I love being able to locate enemies based on footsteps etc.

#5 Posted by thehexeditor (1404 posts) -

Something about the blonde guy ticks me off. He comes across as a fucking tool.

#6 Posted by Arker101 (1474 posts) -

They're making the third game of a trilogy with a ton of guys from the main developer studio being gone. They're doing what they can to add replayibility to it, even with Activision breathing down their necks.

That's an arena shooter, and while better graphics would be nice, that game requires sharper lines and 60 FPS. I can't tell you how many times I've died in BF3 because I couldn't tell the difference between brown camo guy and brown dirt. BF3 is not really that bad, but in an arena shooter enemies need to be distinct.

Game Modes? Really? All anyone ever plays is TDM, DOM, or SnD. Just like BF3 where it's mostly CON and Rush. Variety is nice, but lets not kid ourselves. Most people stick to these game types, and maybe switch to hardcore every now and then.

#7 Posted by MikkaQ (10268 posts) -

Well that engine is older than time. I wish they'd make modern engine that looks good and runs at 60 like Rage did.

And yeah I forgot how poor the gun sounds were. It sounds like someone's just slapping a ruler against a table or something, then repeating it 600 times a minute. Then again DICE has spoiled people with BC2 and BF3 with that War Tapes setting.

I just really want to play the singleplayer campaign. I think the multiplayer has become more and more of an elaborate joke as the series went on. I think by MW4 the entire multiplayer will just be kill streaks, no guns, just rail shooting from a chopper or plane. They seem too focused on making it as ridiculous as possible with no real intent on balance.

#8 Posted by JacDG (2113 posts) -

@XII_Sniper said:

I think the multiplayer has become more and more of an elaborate joke as the series went on. I think by MW4 the entire multiplayer will just be kill streaks, no guns, just rail shooting from a chopper or plane. They seem too focused on making it as ridiculous as possible with no real intent on balance.

Killstreaks in Black Ops were ridiculously easy to destroy, the only useful one seemed to be the Blackbird, as it was the only one that could guarantee any kills at all. 9/10 times, my chopper gunner was shot down in seconds, which is why I stopped using anything but UAV, Counter-UAV and Blackbird. I know this is a different developer team, but with the package system, it seems they are toning the prominence of killstreaks down a notch or two from MW2, where killstreaks were stupendously crazy and out of control.

#9 Posted by TooSweet (377 posts) -

No idea if I'll get MW3. As of now, that's a no. Maybe if my roommate picks it up I'll play a bit. Battlefield 3 will keep me busy for a long while. Plus its a challenge for me since I'm not very good with FPS on the PC. Each match for me is a lesson so I'm enjoying it.

#10 Posted by Afroman269 (7387 posts) -

Rental.

#11 Posted by RandomInternetUser (6789 posts) -

I might buy this when it drops to 20 or 30 bucks if the campaign is decent and has a satisfying ending of Cap'n Price and Soap's story.

#12 Posted by CosmicQueso (569 posts) -

- You don't like the game because devs said "brand new"?

- Graphics and gun sounds? Really?

- Don't like kill confirmed? Okay, so fewer completely optional modes is what you're looking for?

- You're complaining that they included custom game modes? A completely optional feature? That's... wait... that's a... bad thing?

If you like BF, that's cool... but based on these criticisms... this is a complete leg pull of a rant, right? These, well these can't be actual complaints, can they?

#13 Posted by huntad (1930 posts) -

It looks like CoD to me. The only thing that really stood out that you also mentioned are the gun sounds. They really do all sound like the same gun, lol.

#14 Posted by SomeJerk (3138 posts) -

Nothing happened to COD.
 
That's the problem.

#15 Posted by gamb1t (964 posts) -

@CosmicQueso said:

- You don't like the game because devs said "brand new"?

- Graphics and gun sounds? Really?

- Don't like kill confirmed? Okay, so fewer completely optional modes is what you're looking for?

- You're complaining that they included custom game modes? A completely optional feature? That's... wait... that's a... bad thing?

If you like BF, that's cool... but based on these criticisms... this is a complete leg pull of a rant, right? These, well these can't be actual complaints, can they?

its a 5 year old engine, game is ancient

#16 Posted by ichthy (478 posts) -

At this point, MW is just Quake for me, because Quake doesn't exist in this day-and-age. Fast-paced arena shooter is all I expect from it. It's pretty much why I don't like Battlefield. As much as I enjoy suiciding trucks with C4 into buildings, sometimes I just want to run around and shoot guys.

#17 Posted by Ramone (2959 posts) -

Everything about the development of this game seems lazy and low-cost.

Exact same UI as Modern Warfare 2 down to the font.

Most of the assets from the previous games seem to have been copied and pasted into MW3.

Sounds are very similar as well.

Oh and from now on can we agree that we don't say the word epic or large scale unless we are being literal.

#18 Posted by Vegetable_Side_Dish (1724 posts) -

I'll never get the appeal. Looks like a bunch of guys with pea shooters zipping around a muddy environment over and over again. Always has. 

#19 Posted by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -

This game looks like a joke, I am amazed how they can release MW2 with a few new maps and game mods and charge $60 for it.

#20 Posted by haggis (1677 posts) -

It's hard to judge the gun sounds from the short clips and the not-so-great quality of an online video. But yeah, they sound similar. Worse, they sound very thin. Guns usually do in most games. I spend a lot of time around guns, and it's always been a disappointment that they get the look of them right in the games, but seldom get across the actually feeling of the sound. I thought Battlefield 3 did a decent job of it, though.

I don't think the game looks all that bad given the age of the engine. Could it be better? Sure, but I don't think they're going to overhaul the engine so late in the current console cycle. A lot of games are in that same predicament right now. Don't expect any massive investment in time and resources in upgrading this series until there's a new console. As to the comparisons between BF3 and MW3, different strokes for different folks.

#21 Posted by MayorFeedback (674 posts) -

I'm looking forward to the campaign, but I don't think I'll spend as much time in the multiplayer as I did in MW2 (which, relatively to most COD players, wasn't all that much, just more than I usually spend in multiplayer). Looks fine and everything, but it's not like there aren't any other games to play right now.

#22 Posted by Edin899 (627 posts) -

@Arker101 said:

They're making the third game of a trilogy with a ton of guys from the main developer studio being gone. They're doing what they can to add replayibility to it, even with Activision breathing down their necks.

That's an arena shooter, and while better graphics would be nice, that game requires sharper lines and 60 FPS. I can't tell you how many times I've died in BF3 because I couldn't tell the difference between brown camo guy and brown dirt. BF3 is not really that bad, but in an arena shooter enemies need to be distinct.

Game Modes? Really? All anyone ever plays is TDM, DOM, or SnD. Just like BF3 where it's mostly CON and Rush. Variety is nice, but lets not kid ourselves. Most people stick to these game types, and maybe switch to hardcore every now and then.

That´s what i am saying ! Y show game modes? Thats all they have to show? Who cares about this stuff. I don't really know how call of duty can get fresh again. We will have to wait and see

#23 Posted by Edin899 (627 posts) -

@CosmicQueso said:

- You don't like the game because devs said "brand new"?

- Graphics and gun sounds? Really?

- Don't like kill confirmed? Okay, so fewer completely optional modes is what you're looking for?

- You're complaining that they included custom game modes? A completely optional feature? That's... wait... that's a... bad thing?

If you like BF, that's cool... but based on these criticisms... this is a complete leg pull of a rant, right? These, well these can't be actual complaints, can they?

No its not a rant.

I played all the call of duty's except for world at war.

Are you saying the graphics look great? And that the gun sounds blow you away? Really?

With all the money the call of duty franchise makes they can make a new engine anyday. But they don't its called lazy development. They pump out the same stuff and people keep buying it, doesn't mean it a brilliant game.

I am still thinking about buying it, but it has not convinced me yet.

#24 Posted by JacDG (2113 posts) -

@imsh_pl said:

This game looks like a joke, I am amazed how they can release MW2 with a few new maps and game mods and charge $60 for it.

There's a new single player mode, and a new co-op mode, as well as the few tweaks and additions they've made to the multiplayer, which can't just be done with patches, seems pretty reasonable.

#25 Posted by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -
@JacDG said:

@imsh_pl said:

This game looks like a joke, I am amazed how they can release MW2 with a few new maps and game mods and charge $60 for it.

There's a new single player mode, and a new co-op mode, as well as the few tweaks and additions they've made to the multiplayer, which can't just be done with patches, seems pretty reasonable.

All these "tweaks and additions" could be easily done with patches, but instead of even attempting to release a DLC they decided to sell them alongside new maps and weapons for full price.
#26 Posted by Edin899 (627 posts) -

@imsh_pl said:

@JacDG said:

@imsh_pl said:

This game looks like a joke, I am amazed how they can release MW2 with a few new maps and game mods and charge $60 for it.

There's a new single player mode, and a new co-op mode, as well as the few tweaks and additions they've made to the multiplayer, which can't just be done with patches, seems pretty reasonable.

All these "tweaks and additions" could be easily done with patches, but instead of even attempting to release a DLC they decided to sell them alongside new maps and weapons for full price.

Let's not make this into a big discussion about how it could have been DLC. We all know they release a cod game every year. And every year we hope it's something new, this year they have gone too far, it looks too much like MW2

#27 Posted by JacDG (2113 posts) -

@Edin899 said:

@imsh_pl said:

@JacDG said:

@imsh_pl said:

This game looks like a joke, I am amazed how they can release MW2 with a few new maps and game mods and charge $60 for it.

There's a new single player mode, and a new co-op mode, as well as the few tweaks and additions they've made to the multiplayer, which can't just be done with patches, seems pretty reasonable.

All these "tweaks and additions" could be easily done with patches, but instead of even attempting to release a DLC they decided to sell them alongside new maps and weapons for full price.

Let's not make this into a big discussion about how it could have been DLC. We all know they release a cod game every year. And every year we hope it's something new, this year they have gone too far, it looks too much like MW2

But they have added something new? Maybe not brand spanking new, but they have added new stuff to the Call of Duty multiplayer-experience. Most large franchise do not change a whole lot, it's too risky. They release a new Call of Duty every year, which is why a lot of people think the series has gone stale, I'm sure if it had another publisher and came out every second year, like a lot of franchises do, there would be far, FAR less of the "anti Call of Duty" crowd who seem to be everywhere on internet forums.

#28 Posted by Breadfan (6589 posts) -

What they haven't done to Call of Duty seems to be my problem with the series at least. Too much of the same. Sure it's still a lot of fun, but I get too bored too quickly.

#29 Posted by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -
@JacDG: But they haven't even changed any of the hud, textures or even font for that matter. This is just 2,5 and they're not even trying (imo).
#30 Posted by clstirens (847 posts) -

@JacDG said:

I think the game looks perfectly fine from a graphical standpoint, at this point, the engine is pretty old and I'd honestly rather have the 60 frames per second. Guns sound pretty bad, especially compared to something like Battlefield, but the sound system in Call of Duty is pretty different, for instance I love being able to locate enemies based on footsteps etc.

I agree with you, except that I do this all the time in BF3, and even in Halo 3/reach

#31 Posted by Twisted_Scot (1175 posts) -
@yorro said:

Battlefield happened.

World at War MW2, Black Ops THEN Battlefield happened. 
 
Ill pick it up. It's my drinking game, when I'm too drunk to play BF3 COD all the way.
#32 Posted by BUCK3TM4N (549 posts) -

COD 4 is like 5 years old right?

#33 Posted by CptChiken (1987 posts) -

I dont even know when this is coming out... i havent heard a thing about it. and to be honest, i really dont care about COD anymore.

#34 Posted by jelekeloy (456 posts) -

To me, it looks and sounds almost exactly like MW2. Since I'm only gonna play it for some mindless fun with friends, I'm OK with that.

#35 Posted by VisariLoyalist (2990 posts) -

holy crap I read everything you wrote and felt like it sounded whiny as hell. But you are completely right. Horrible gun sounds. Horrible looking. BF3 has really moved the goal posts

#36 Posted by Zacagawea (1580 posts) -

Looks good to me

#37 Posted by CosmicQueso (569 posts) -

@Edin899 said:

Are you saying the graphics look great? And that the gun sounds blow you away? Really?

With all the money the call of duty franchise makes they can make a new engine anyday. But they don't its called lazy development. They pump out the same stuff and people keep buying it, doesn't mean it a brilliant game.

I am still thinking about buying it, but it has not convinced me yet.

The graphics look like Call of Duty, the gun sounds sound like Call of Duty.

And sure they could make a new engine, but you have to understand. This is the best-selling franchise in gaming. A majority of that crowd only buys this one game every year. Honestly? New engines and playstyles would confuse more of these people. It's not what they want. No one's saying it's brilliant or mega-innovative. It doesn't have to (maybe shouldn't?) be. They'll have to create something new for the next gen, but for now? Why would they risk confusing such a mass audience?

Coke is coke, man. They changed that formula and the masses went apestuff. BF3 and COD are different animals, like Woody Allen and Tyler Perry.

#38 Posted by mikey87144 (1663 posts) -

You played Battlefield. Same thing happened to me after I played BFBC2

#39 Posted by Edin899 (627 posts) -

@CosmicQueso said:

@Edin899 said:

Are you saying the graphics look great? And that the gun sounds blow you away? Really?

With all the money the call of duty franchise makes they can make a new engine anyday. But they don't its called lazy development. They pump out the same stuff and people keep buying it, doesn't mean it a brilliant game.

I am still thinking about buying it, but it has not convinced me yet.

The graphics look like Call of Duty, the gun sounds sound like Call of Duty.

And sure they could make a new engine, but you have to understand. This is the best-selling franchise in gaming. A majority of that crowd only buys this one game every year. Honestly? New engines and playstyles would confuse more of these people. It's not what they want. No one's saying it's brilliant or mega-innovative. It doesn't have to (maybe shouldn't?) be. They'll have to create something new for the next gen, but for now? Why would they risk confusing such a mass audience?

Coke is coke, man. They changed that formula and the masses went apestuff. BF3 and COD are different animals, like Woody Allen and Tyler Perry.

What the hell are you talking about.

It still says call of duty on the box and in the commercials. It won´t say ´´game engine modern warfare 4´´ People won´t be confused. How does anybody get confused by a game engine? Activision will say it's the call of duty you love but it looks alot better ! And people get confused by that? Maybe you should start hanging out with some brighter people.

#40 Posted by Edin899 (627 posts) -

@VisariLoyalist said:

holy crap I read everything you wrote and felt like it sounded whiny as hell. But you are completely right. Horrible gun sounds. Horrible looking. BF3 has really moved the goal posts

Uh thank you i guess? :)

#41 Posted by AjayRaz (12418 posts) -

i like the gun sounds. they don't pack much of a punch yeah, but i like them regardless.   
 
yes, this is more of the same but i can't say i'm disappointed so far. i still find that MW2 is a ton of fun and i am looking forward to MW3 

#42 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3555 posts) -

@Edin899 said:

What the hell are you talking about.

It still says call of duty on the box and in the commercials. It won´t say ´´game engine modern warfare 4´´ People won´t be confused. How does anybody get confused by a game engine? Activision will say it's the call of duty you love but it looks alot better !

The 60 frames-per-second gameplay is vital to the COD experience, and there really isn't much else that could be done this console generation to both considerably improve the graphics, AND keep the game running at 60 frames-per-second. That's the real issue, here.

Rage comes the closest to making that a possibility, but that's one game that took arguably the best gaming tech company ages to create, and so far hasn't proven that it can do large-scale Multiplayer.

#43 Posted by CosmicQueso (569 posts) -

@Edin899 said:

What the hell are you talking about.

It still says call of duty on the box and in the commercials. It won´t say ´´game engine modern warfare 4´´ People won´t be confused. How does anybody get confused by a game engine? Activision will say it's the call of duty you love but it looks alot better ! And people get confused by that? Maybe you should start hanging out with some brighter people.

Wow, you're a friendly one, aren't you?

YOU are not the true majority, mass market consumer buying Call of Duty. YOUR expectations for what a game should be are different than theirs. But whatever man, be angry on a message board about gun sounds. Rock on, brother.

#44 Posted by Edin899 (627 posts) -

@CosmicQueso said:

@Edin899 said:

What the hell are you talking about.

It still says call of duty on the box and in the commercials. It won´t say ´´game engine modern warfare 4´´ People won´t be confused. How does anybody get confused by a game engine? Activision will say it's the call of duty you love but it looks alot better ! And people get confused by that? Maybe you should start hanging out with some brighter people.

Wow, you're a friendly one, aren't you?

YOU are not the true majority, mass market consumer buying Call of Duty. YOUR expectations for what a game should be are different than theirs. But whatever man, be angry on a message board about gun sounds. Rock on, brother.

lol i'm not mad, i am just suprised you think people get confused by a new game engine.....

And i am not angry, i am dissapointed.

#45 Posted by MrMazz (915 posts) -

Duh they are trying to replace all the old IW guys becasue THEY ALL QUIT. I play CoD for the multiplayer its fun and some of the best lonewolf action you can get outside of fighters. It looks a lot like MW2 becasue its a sequel to MW2.

#46 Posted by Skyrider (330 posts) -

I just want to see how the story ends. Yeah, the guns sound kind of weird, and while watching the IGN live stream (in addition to other gameplay videos), the bullet ricochets and explosions sounded like they were literally ripped from a 90's James Bond movie. However, (bear in mind that I've not dabbled in MW multiplayer, I've only been interested in the campaign), from what I've seen the sound design does match the style of the multiplayer. To me, MP in MW seems to have a . . . campy feel to it? It's looks run and gun, super fast paced shooting with perks being unlocked on the fly. It looks like it plays like an action movie. It's not trying to be super realistic, so in that sense I can't fault them for the sound design.

#47 Posted by RE_Player1 (7549 posts) -

Activision happened. They did it with Tony Hawk, they did it with Guitar Hero and now they are doing it with Call of Duty. I actually like Call of Duty 4 and some of Modern Warfare 2 but I cannot support a publisher that runs a buisness that irresponsibly. I still won't forgive them for closing down Bizarre Creations.

#48 Posted by Sackmanjones (4652 posts) -

I read every post on this thread and it was awesome...... Anyway COD isnt my cup of tea but I can see how people enjoy it. I am lookin forward to single player though, which means I wont be buying it.

#49 Edited by JamesKond (232 posts) -

It got popular, too popular!

#50 Posted by MrMazz (915 posts) -

@msavo: Is it irresponsible if they make so much money? They have created one of the largest if not the largest video game franchise of course they are going to whore it out hell I would do the same thing.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.