CoD is going down hill. I'm just going to ramble on and on for a bit ITT.

#21LerthyrPosted 2/4/2013 6:49:25 AM
This topic makes me miss my CoD4/MW2 days soo much. Thanks, SoD. :(
---
GT: Lerthyr
I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.GiTS: Arise (Season 3) finally announced!
#221ee7icusPosted 2/4/2013 7:50:19 AM
Didnt read all that garbage. Another this game sucks even though I play it and boost about being awesome...blah blah blah.

Yawn...
---
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles > Every Anime ever
Currently Playing: Blops 2, Trials Evo & BL2
#23HaganPosted 2/4/2013 8:22:48 AM
Need a new franchise to take the helm.

Halo had its day, Call of Duty had its day. Maybe Bungie can do it with Destiny, or Respawn can do it with their upcoming title.

Personally, I think the next big thing will come out of Blacktusk Studios. Oh well, heres hoping.
---
XBL GT= illidan z
http://www.youtube.com/user/illidanz
#24gnosox1986Posted 2/4/2013 8:30:22 AM
Soul_On_Display posted...
CoD is going down hill, not that you need me to tell you this. Man, I really didn't see this coming back in my CoD4, WaW, or MW2 days. The funny thing is, I always felt like BO2 was very boring and annoying, even from the very start. I gathered this opinion straight from day 1. Even MW3 took me 3 months to realize how much I disliked it. The only thing that kept me from completely considering BO2 a failure from the very beginning was because I felt that the innovation made up for the other mistakes, which I realize is not the case.

I remember calling BO2 decent only because it felt very clever for a CoD game, what with its little innovations here and there that seemed impressive in concept. But after so many deaths later, I know for sure this game is just terrible, no matter how good you are. What do you expect from a game that punishes just about everyone one way or another? When it comes down to it, BO2 had some nice ideas but we're left with a sloppy game. MW3 didn't have as many clever aspects to it, minus a few things, but it could have also been great should it not been full of quality-diminishing design everywhere.

Some say that CoD started going down hill with BO1, some say with MW2, and others, MW3. All I know is, it probably isn't going to get much better. We could be wooed into buying the next CoD if next gen entices us into doing so, but many people probably won't bounce back from this. I know I'm not going to buy the next CoD without trying the game out for a significant amount of time, somehow. Hell, I didn't even buy the BO2 DLC and I'm glad I didn't. That would have never been something the old, CoD-me would have done. If it had the name "Call of Duty" on it, you could be sure that I would buy it. Don't consider me less of a fan because I don't glorify every piece of **** recent developers make. I rant because I am a true fan deep down.

Now about you guys. How much do you miss the old CoD days? Remember how addicting this game was. Too bad the rage outweighs the pleasure now, which I never thought was possible.


The problem with COD... Over saturation.

When you see a new installment every year, and there is little change, its hard to stay excited. And once a bar is set, the status quo needs to be stay. When MW2 was such a hit... great maps, fun weapons. It needed to me matched.

Then BO tried to live up, but slightly missed. It had a few great maps and some good ones. It had a handful of fun weapons.

Then MW3 hit. No great maps, a few good ones. No really fun weapons. A real stinker of an installment.

BO2 tried to comeback, but focused too much on trying to "listen to the people who complained" and didn't focus on going back to the basics of making the game fun.

If there is another installment in 2013, I will be passing.
---
GT- DARTH GNO69
Now Playing: NHL 13, NCAA 13, FIFA 12, CoD: MW3, Madden12, Splinter Cell: Conviction
#25darkshadowmasterPosted 2/4/2013 8:34:40 AM
YusukeUrameshi7 posted...
Battlefield. You're welcome.


Too slow. Not a fan of running for 2 min or so searching for someone just to die & do it again, or I kill them and spend another 2 min looking for someone else.

With more people on PC I'm sure it's not like that, but that's what I kept running into on PS3.
---
When I read about the evils of drinking, I gave up reading.
#26Jokerz_WildcardPosted 2/4/2013 8:36:56 AM
After skimming through your original post, I have come to this conclusion.
You are terrible, not the game.
Sheep are sheep
Sharks (me) are SHARKS
#27Sliq6969Posted 2/4/2013 11:26:37 AM
This is my favorite COD to date. All of the weapons have a unique aspect to them, none are clones, which makes things very interesting.

The pick 10 system is genius, which includes the wildcards.

Everything seems balanced. Every thing in the game has a counter.

The maps are ok. Some are great, some are awful, but most are just ok. It is an SMG fest, but that is entirely by level design. Gun stat wise, everything is pretty balanced.

The new tacticals are awesome, the perk balance is awesome. Ghost is perfect. Camping and headglitching are now easier to deal with than ever before (MSS, TF, Sensor Grenades, Ghost not working while stationary).

The game rewards playing the objective vs. whoring kills.

MY only big knocks are the connection issues and the spawns, and I haven't heard a single person NOT complain about either of these since MW2.

I really love this game, and think it is the best to date.

I feel like everyone that says older CODs are better are speaking from a preference standpoint, or are blinded by nostalgia.

I'd say, if you liked the other games better, just play those. It makes no sense to play the new game if you like the old one better.
---
stop denying the fact
#28ZuuFPosted 2/4/2013 11:39:19 AM
Call of Duty has been slowly (or rapidly) declining with (not after, but WITH) 4: MW1. Its campaign had a generic terrorist plot, was much more linear than the previous CoD games, and it just ends abruptly. Call of Duty 1 was a great game with a great campaign. Same with United Offensive, and Finest Hour. 2 was another GREAT game, and Big Red One was probably the closest to 1 ever on a console so far.
The exception to the my rule, is World at War. THAT, is what 4 should have been. Sure, it still had linear objectives, but the levels were more open, which led to a more-realistic feel and added to the atmosphere (and the gore also added to the atmosphere). It's better than 4 in EVERY way, and that's just how it is. WaW: Final Fronts was another good game.
---
-Use Force to kill grue
-Your midichlorian count isn't high enough; you are eaten by a grue
#29ItIsAPsyBorgPosted 2/4/2013 11:52:23 AM
Why is COD going downhill (and no one sane disagrees that it is)?

Because few playing nowadays understand the way the game actually works and what the REAL issues are. And, sadly enough, this has been going on since WaW.

In WaW (console version, not PC, which was better), people began to argue against Juggernaut. This was done mostly by the quickscope community, which didn't like to actually aim at people for kills; however, this idea that Jugg was bad was picked up by the rest of the community because of how Juggernaut worked with the MP40, which did 50 damage. People united against Juggernaut's presence in future CODs without understanding that the console version of the MP40 - not Jugg - was the problem. This introduced Stopping Power without Jugg in MW2.

This, in turn, made MW2 the game in which the gunset was horribly flawed - all guns killed in 2-3 shots with high ROFs and no recoil (SP assumed, because it *is* usually the perk used in MW2). OMA DC grenade launchers happened because the newfound power of weapons was considered alongside people's desire for "something new" (people thought WaW "wasn't something new" even though it was a polished game, as it was set in WW2), and this broke the game. Most veteran COD players of the time agreed that this state of COD was horrible, but the problem with remedying this situation was that MW2 was a best seller because of hype and MW2 was therefore the first COD for newer players. Newer COD players came to expect this kind of noob-friendly gameplay out of COD.

When Treyarch didn't really react to MW2 and produced BO1 as a compromise between WaW and the modern CODs, newer players would not accept a partial return to skill based gameplay and this situation generated tons of flak for a game that was clearly better than MW2; newer players said BO1 was "too slow" (codeword for kills being harder to get). COD's path has been determined ever since: it is now a game where anyone can pick it up and kill someone who's been playing the series for years on end. This is why, although gunset issues have been fixed in BO2, linear map design has persisted as a major concession to post-WaW players.
#30fatclemenzaPosted 2/4/2013 11:53:44 AM
From: darkshadowmaster | #025
Too slow. Not a fan of running for 2 min or so searching for someone just to die & do it again, or I kill them and spend another 2 min looking for someone else.

confirmed for not playing battlefield?
---
Advertising signs, they con you into thinking you’re the one
That can do what’s never been done, that can win what’s never been won