• 52 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for sometimesavowel
#1 Edited by sometimesavowel (160 posts) -

I'm very optimistic about a next-gen Call of Duty title, but I'm also a little wary of the fact that it's also coming to current-gen consoles. As a mainstream, mass-market franchise, this game needs to provide a compelling reason to buy new hardware.

I mean, I feel that way. Very strongly, but maybe I'm wrong.

Avatar image for snail
#2 Posted by Snail (8837 posts) -

Better explosions.

Done.

Avatar image for blu3v3nom07
#3 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4291 posts) -

It sounds like you're trying to justify spending on next-gen, and that's fine.

I'm getting on Next-box, and I have a CoDHead friend. So its just a matter of convincing him of spending hardware money,. which might be a little hard to do.. So, I just don't see the problem with (me) here. I'm convinced to at least look at it.

Online
Avatar image for sometimesavowel
#4 Posted by sometimesavowel (160 posts) -

Right...I mean, there's no way I shouldn't reserve judgement without taking a look. Going cross-generation can be a little tricky, I think.

Avatar image for quarters
#5 Posted by Quarters (2384 posts) -

It just comes with the territory. New system comes out, games come out for old and new. Been that way for a while now. Heck, even if you go back to the SNES/PS1, Street Fighter Alpha 2 came out on both systems. Usually, different teams work on the versions, which means that the next gen one will be the one worth getting, with the old gen version just being gimped for those that can't afford/are too stubborn to buy the new system yet, so they aren't totally gipped. Standard practice.

Avatar image for xtrememuffinman
#6 Posted by Xtrememuffinman (951 posts) -

Yeah, and not sell half the copies because a lack of supply (of consoles) and people continuing to play BLOPS2 and wait for more reason to get a new console. Very few people are willing to plop down a couple hundred bucks for a game or two. Only selling on the next gen would be shooting themselves in the foot, they're going to transition with the rest of the market. When it no longer makes sense to spend money developing for this gen of consoles (2-3 years, if not more, realistically) because everyone's on the next box, then it'll be next gen only.

Activision doesn't care about selling consoles, they don't see any profit from it.

Avatar image for jouseldelka
#7 Edited by JouselDelka (980 posts) -

I totally see the entertainment that the mindless run and gun nature of Call of Duty provides, but being optimistic about this rehashed franchise providing a compelling reason to buy new hardware is unrealistic.

It's not gonna happen, the games will stay the same on next gen because they sell. So if, out of all the amazing and innovative games out there, you need the least creative one to convince you to buy a next gen console, you're not gonna buy one.

Avatar image for minipato
#8 Posted by MiniPato (2819 posts) -

I dunno, Black Ops 2 was good and did some real cool thing. But Infinity Ward seems to pride themselves on not taking cues from Treyarch and I think Robert Bowling had some controversy with someone at Activision or Treyarch for comparing their games to Treyarch's. So maybe with Robert Bowling gone there can be more co-operation between the two.

Avatar image for sometimesavowel
#9 Edited by sometimesavowel (160 posts) -

I think it's a catch-22, probably...because Activision needs a new Call of Duty every year, but Microsoft needs a ringer to sell their new product. I guess I'm wondering why they wouldn't totally commit to the next-gen route?

Avatar image for sometimesavowel
#10 Posted by sometimesavowel (160 posts) -

Dammit, that question was answered while I was formulating words. Never mind.

Avatar image for laserbolts
#11 Posted by laserbolts (5506 posts) -

Not so interested in the first call of duty on new consoles but maybe the one after that may do something different. Like the step up from call of duty 3 to modern warfare. If I remember correctly call of duty 3 on 360 and xbox were pretty much the same thing aside from graphics.

Avatar image for sathingtonwaltz
#12 Edited by SathingtonWaltz (2167 posts) -

Yeah you could tell that Treyarch has been taking legitimate efforts to freshen things up in the their COD games. They tried a lot of interesting things in the single player, and did a great job of balancing the multiplayer in BO2. (the last COD I played was MW2)

Avatar image for mordeaniischaos
#13 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5904 posts) -

Unfortunately the sales for the franchise mean that the dev doesn't have much choice in the matter. The next game will probably be next gen only, or it'll be silly to get it on last gen at the very least because everyone will be playing on the new boxes by then hopefully.

Either way, I'm curious about the split for a game that's going to be designed to run at 60fps on next gen platforms. Which is interested both in what the differences between the two versions will be like but also becuase we haven't seen any "designed for 60 fps" games for the PS4 so this'll probably be the first we get to look at what it'll take to get a game to run at 60 next generation.

Avatar image for creamypies
#14 Posted by Creamypies (4169 posts) -

I'm only interested if there are actual ghosts in this game.

Avatar image for fredchuckdave
#15 Edited by Fredchuckdave (9640 posts) -

Just make the same exact game as last time and it sells 25 million per console, bang.

Avatar image for justin258
#16 Posted by Justin258 (13893 posts) -

If CoD is exclusive to next generation consoles, it might move some consoles but I really doubt that it will be this huge console-mover. Why? People don't like spending several hundred dollars for one single game that they don't suspect will be much different than the other games they already have.

Online
Avatar image for casper_
#17 Posted by casper_ (915 posts) -

well they want to get this game on as many consoles as possible which would obviously be current gen. its not like we are gonna have to wait too long for a next gen one anyhow, as i'd imagine there will be another one next year.

Avatar image for ravenlight
#18 Posted by Ravenlight (8057 posts) -

Ahahahahahhahaaaaahhhahahahahaa~

It's called CoD: Ghosts like it's some Luigi's Mansion crossover or something. I'm tickled.

Avatar image for impartialgecko
#19 Posted by impartialgecko (1824 posts) -

Gun.

Nuff said.

Avatar image for mariachimacabre
#20 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7097 posts) -

Ahahahahahhahaaaaahhhahahahahaa~

It's called CoD: Ghosts like it's some Luigi's Mansion crossover or something. I'm tickled.

Shit! Who told you?

Avatar image for toowalrus
#21 Posted by TooWalrus (13380 posts) -

*poop noises*

Avatar image for tourgen
#22 Edited by tourgen (4568 posts) -

It's all a matter of perspective. When it comes out this fall it will look alright to you. It'll be fun. Good times had by all. 1-2 years from now it will look like ass to you and you won't believe you ever wasted your time playing it.

it's just the realities of new console launches and the games that straddle the generation line.

Avatar image for hailinel
#23 Posted by Hailinel (25787 posts) -

Yeah. As others have noted, Activision isn't concerned about sales of consoles. They just want the game to sell a hojillion copies on everything that they release it on, so they'll release it on everything.

Avatar image for sometimesavowel
#24 Edited by sometimesavowel (160 posts) -

This transition is also fairly different from the last one in the sense that developers have never had to consider any additional functionality - it used to be just it plays the game, and that's it. We don't know exactly what the new Xbox will offer or everything that the new Playstation will offer, but maybe we should see the next-gen version of Ghosts levereage their new capabilities, whatever those might be.

Avatar image for bobafettjm
#25 Edited by bobafettjm (1942 posts) -

The thing that interests me about the version on the new consoles is that it is supposed to have a new engine. The problem I have had with the multiplayer is that they keep stacking more and more on top of a (really) old engine.

Avatar image for sursh
#26 Edited by Sursh (248 posts) -

The thing that interests me about the version on the new consoles is that it is supposed to have a new engine. The problem I have had with the multiplayer is that they keep stacking more and more on top of a (really) old engine.

i was hoping they would do this! even now in black ops 2, i still feel like i'm playing the first call of duty with better lighting.

Avatar image for tread311
#27 Edited by tread311 (377 posts) -

Call of Duty isn't going to push console sales until it's only available on the new systems. I don't see that happening for years. It's the new and fresh stuff that is going to excite people after such a long generation. The guys that just play Call of Duty were probably never going to spend $400 on a new system anyway.

Avatar image for themanwithnoplan
#28 Posted by TheManWithNoPlan (6617 posts) -

It could be good. I mean, it says Ghosts right there in the title. I doubt it'll be much different on the next gen consoles. We'll have to wait for the next iteration before we see something truly next gen.

Avatar image for mosespippy
#29 Posted by mosespippy (4748 posts) -

I expect sales of CoD to drop like Madden did at the last console transition. The player base will get fractured between the old and new systems. Groups of friends will get split up and that's going to mean they can't convince other friends to get it as easily, or some friends who were part of the group in the past won't get it because their group has broken up.

Avatar image for iam3green
#30 Edited by iam3green (14368 posts) -

it's so the people who get the newer console will have call of duty game to play.

things like this happen all the time. it's for people who don't buy newer consoles when one comes out. it's good for people like me. i buy new systems when the price drops.

Avatar image for toowalrus
#31 Edited by TooWalrus (13380 posts) -

People don't like spending several hundred dollars for one single game that they don't suspect will be much different than the other games they already have.

Isn't that pretty much how Nintendo stays in business?

Avatar image for somejerk
#32 Posted by SomeJerk (4077 posts) -

They can do fresh original things with a new engine but they don't need to, and likely aren't going to be budgeted towards doing it either. MW3 SP was hilariously bad, Blops 2 was Treyarch's finest (and I defend it - it was really good for a COD), this years COD isn't going to to be from either of them if I read right.

If the SP continues to consist of enter room - shoot incoming terrorists - enter next room like MW3, then screw them. If the MP continues to be dull forgettable maps and a balance catering towards rapid fire weapons, then screw them even harder. If they add a Nuketowny map, don't screw them - forget them entirely.

And resume waiting for Bad Company 3. It's hard to enjoy other online FPS action after so much BC2.

Avatar image for mikejamoran
#33 Posted by MikeJAMoran (30 posts) -

Call of Duty 2 was probably the best game available at the Xbox 360's launch, although that didn't come to PS2/Xbox. It didn't really feel "next gen" but it was a great launch title.

Avatar image for quarters
#34 Posted by Quarters (2384 posts) -

I'm actually really curious to see how this year turns out, because now we get to see how Infinity Ward 2.0 will handle it. With MW3, they were in complete flux, and were just trying to stay afloat. Now, they are stable and on their own, without the aid of Sledgehammer. Wonder what they'll cook up. Regardless, I'm excited. CoD hasn't let me down yet.

Avatar image for mctangle
#35 Posted by McTangle (161 posts) -

I wonder if they'll put new guns in. Maybe some new colours for me to put on my guns. Dang, I sure hope there are some game-modes.

Avatar image for penguindust
#36 Edited by PenguinDust (12975 posts) -

I haven't played a COD since MW2 so if the new Infinity Ward can provide a solid 12-14 hour single-player experience, then I might be down for it. Probably a PS3, maybe a PS4 thing for me but, right now I am not sold on the next gen consoles. I wait for E3 to push me in either direction. Anyway, everyone complains about the dearth of military shooters and with good reason, but if you play one every 4 or 5 years, it isn't as much an issue.

The people that I know who still play COD will probably come back for another round this fall over whatever Respawn is doing. They play the game because they recognize and know the weapons. Imaginary space guns don't interest them. I, on the other hand, enjoy weapons that shoot fire and lightning.

By the way, is COD Ghosts MW4 or is it an offshoot and at some point in the future there will be an offical MW4? Any ideas?

Avatar image for sometimesavowel
#38 Posted by sometimesavowel (160 posts) -
Avatar image for internetdotcom
#39 Edited by GorillaMoPena (3174 posts) -

Micro-transaction masks.

Boom, done. Pay me a million dollars.

Avatar image for klei
#40 Edited by Klei (1799 posts) -

Are you guys really thinking it'll look totally next-gen with flashy effects and lens flares? Seriously? Of course it won't.

Avatar image for winternet
#41 Edited by Winternet (8368 posts) -

Bigger user base = more sales. Pretty simple.

Avatar image for pezen
#42 Edited by Pezen (2056 posts) -

@minipato said:

I dunno, Black Ops 2 was good and did some real cool thing. But Infinity Ward seems to pride themselves on not taking cues from Treyarch and I think Robert Bowling had some controversy with someone at Activision or Treyarch for comparing their games to Treyarch's. So maybe with Robert Bowling gone there can be more co-operation between the two.

That was always one of my biggest pet peeves with the two companies. They both have great ideas on how to further the franchise but they seem to completely ignore what good progress the other company makes. And I feel like Treyarch has as of late proven themselves to be open to switch things up a bit and do some new things. I used to really prefer the Infinity Ward games but I don't know, feels like they're stuck in a rut and Treyarch with Black Ops is offering something a bit more fresh. But maybe that's the result of fighting for recognition.

Avatar image for somberowl
#44 Edited by SomberOwl (914 posts) -

Well if they're going to reveal it at the Xbox reveal event I can only imagine they'll give us a reason it will be better on the next gen systems.

Avatar image for colourful_hippie
#45 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (5442 posts) -

Left trigger, right trigger in 1080p?

Avatar image for ssully
#46 Edited by SSully (5093 posts) -

I expect sales of CoD to drop like Madden did at the last console transition. The player base will get fractured between the old and new systems. Groups of friends will get split up and that's going to mean they can't convince other friends to get it as easily, or some friends who were part of the group in the past won't get it because their group has broken up.

Did madden sales really drop? Did they ever pick up?? I only ask because I literally have no relation to sports games and my friends that do like sports dont play madden. They are more into The Show or NHL.

Avatar image for august
#47 Posted by august (3995 posts) -

It's Activision's job to sell software, not hardware.

Avatar image for mosespippy
#48 Posted by mosespippy (4748 posts) -

@ssully said:

@mosespippy said:

I expect sales of CoD to drop like Madden did at the last console transition. The player base will get fractured between the old and new systems. Groups of friends will get split up and that's going to mean they can't convince other friends to get it as easily, or some friends who were part of the group in the past won't get it because their group has broken up.

Did madden sales really drop? Did they ever pick up?? I only ask because I literally have no relation to sports games and my friends that do like sports dont play madden. They are more into The Show or NHL.

I don't know the exact numbers for certain but sales of Madden dropped significantly in 2005 and 2006 and as far as I know it hasn't regained the lost ground. In 2005 sales dropped because ESPN NFL 2K5 (which some still consider to be the best football game ever made) released at $20 and in 2006 Madden was supposedly a bad game as far as Madden games go. Of course, in 2004 a PS2 was $150; much lower than what a 360 or PS3 currently costs. It could be easy to see a large audience of people who buy a PS2 only to play Madden (just like there is a large audience that just buys 360s to play CoD). With current console prices that single game audience is much smaller, and they are choosing CoD because it's what their friends are playing.

Avatar image for chilipeppersman
#49 Posted by chilipeppersman (1316 posts) -
Avatar image for spaceinsomniac
#50 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (5263 posts) -

I'm only interested if there are actual ghosts in this game.

How about aliens?