Black Ops 2

[aoffan23]

I have Black Ops, and it kinda sucked. But this looks pretty good I think. It just seems dumb to me that people always say that COD is the same game over and over again. But releasing something completely different would alienate their fans. So they had to make a compromise, and yet they still get flak for it. Everybody jump on the COD-hating bandwagon!

My only issue is that the horseback scene looks exactly like the one in Uncharted 3.

[Zupponn]

I always felt that Black Ops' single player sucked, its music was good, the multiplayer was mediocre, and the Piltogg Zombies was fun.

[IVhorseman]

Multiplayer was balanced, but boring. Still, I'm all about that PSG.

[Keldoclock]

horses intrigue me.

Requesting rank change.


aoffan, that's just the thing! They're too afraid of risk to , er, take a risk and make something new and interesting.

[aoffan23]

They've completely changed the setting. So if by new you mean change the game mechanic, then it wouldn't exactly be Call of Duty anymore, would it? Sure, attaching a big name like CoD to a game would definitely boost its sales, that would probably be countered by the disappointment of their current market audience, and also by the fact that everyone would realize that they're just sticking the name onto a completely different game for money.

So the best way to keep making Call of Duty games is to keep making Call of Duty games.

[Keldoclock]

The thing is, Call of Duty games suck giant hairy balls, and I would much rather they just stop making them entirely and focus their efforts on something better.

[Zupponn]

As long as people buy them, they will not stop making them.

[IVhorseman]

The thing is, Call of Duty games suck giant hairy balls

Entirely subjective, depending on which version of the game you're playing. It may be overdone to death, but it's a simple repeatable game mechanic that works. Things like the pacing of the game - how long it takes to get into a match and start shooting people right away, how long until people start shooting in any given game - are all pretty damn cool. It's the most generic of the use-guns-to-kill-dudes genre.

CoD does NOT change their game, because it's something that is expected by stupid-point-huge-number million people willing to shell out 60 bucks for it.

[Keldoclock]

All of those things are done better in ,say, Halo, which suffers far less from imbalance problems owing to standardized loadouts not dependent on how long you've been playing, and items being spread out through the levels.

CoD is the bottom of the shoot-dudes-with-guns-as-a-team barrel.

[Zupponn]

All of those things are done better in ,say, Halo, which suffers far less from imbalance problems owing to standardized loadouts not dependent on how long you've been playing, and items being spread out through the levels.

One of my favorite things to do in COD games is to take the worst guns and own people with them, because most of the guns that aren't used often are really good, but just have a higher learning curve. The MAC-11 in Black Ops 1 was really fun and hilarious to use against people. They would get mad because they kept dying to a "bad" gun.

The problem that Halo has is that whoever gets the good guns wins. If a team controls the one shot kill weapons (sniper, rockets, hammer, sword, and shotgun) on a map or the vehicles, they've pretty much won the game and the comeback potential becomes very low compared to COD. The games also become very similar as everyone generally fights in the areas with the good weapons.

[IVhorseman]

Besides, you usually start with a FAMAS or a SCAR or some other retardedly good assault rifle anyways. There are very few guns that are strictly bad, since everything kills in 2-3 shots anyways. Hell, you could even just do the whole knife-guy build right off the bat if you're that bad at aiming.


WAITAMINUTE, you're looking for the whole "as a team" thing? hahaha! teams are only "good" if your team's made up entirely of your friends and you have voice chat. Preferably, you're also all in the same room. Free-for-all is where it's at.

[samuelzz10]

Ok, I'm getting sick of this. call of duty is an ok game, not great but ok. And please, BATTLE FiELD LO L IS SOOOOO MUCH BETTER LOL is just stupid. The only difference is in battle field is that buildings are destructible. Call of duty is fun, easy, and it has local multiplayer.

[BFenix]

Ok, I'm getting sick of this. call of duty is an ok game, not great but ok. And please, BATTLE FiELD LO L IS SOOOOO MUCH BETTER LOL is just stupid. The only difference is in battle field is that buildings are destructible. Call of duty is fun, easy, and it has local multiplayer.

Ugh... you say your sick of this but yet your comment lacks constructive criticism and foundation like most people expressing their opinion. And this isn't another COD vs BF Youtube war, so cut it out.

[aoffan23]

I'd like to point out a few things.

1. LOL Battlefield and Call of Duty are very different games. I don't know if you actually own both, but I know I do, and that there are vast differences.

2.

I would much rather they just stop making them entirely and focus their efforts on something better.

Well then, why don't you tell that to the lead designers? Sure, they won't be able to hear you over the millions of sales they get from every game, but you should tell them anyway.

3. I'm sure that a professional video game developer is aware of their anti-fans. But they're not going to waste their time completely changing their game to suit others' wants, when they have a completely solid fan base as it is. Yes, they are milking the money out of many people's wallets, but they're only able to do that because people like the game. And that's no different from Halo (which I'm just using because you mentioned it), which is also stretching the franchise like crazy. Remember "finish the fight"? I guess you'll have to wait three more games to do that. And yet people still buy the game because they like it.

Video game cash grabs work because they are giving the fans what they want. It's a win-win situation; company makes money, fans get game, anti-fans don't have to waste their money buying a game they don't like. But yet you still choose to whine about it. Seems like a waste of effort.

[samuelzz10]

Ok, I'm getting sick of this. call of duty is an ok game, not great but ok. And please, BATTLE FiELD LO L IS SOOOOO MUCH BETTER LOL is just stupid. The only difference is in battle field is that buildings are destructible. Call of duty is fun, easy, and it has local multiplayer.

Ugh... you say your sick of this but yet your comment lacks constructive criticism and foundation like most people expressing their opinion. And this isn't another COD vs BF Youtube war, so cut it out.

Dude, I just think that is COD's main contender. I don't care if COD's online is full of noobs, it is still a fun game.