Video games have become so costly to make that a major title release is a potential extinction event for some developers. Understandably, they prefer to play it safe by identifying that which sells and expressing their creativity in very similar, ideally cheaper, ways. In other words, the dream project of an average game developer would be to release the same popular game over and over again. Of course, in some cases, this ‘dream project’ is ‘an actual business model‘.
As much fun as Call of Duty jokes are though, the practice of releasing very similar looking sequels has existed since the dawn of video game classics like Doom and Fallout. No one likes to have all of their original work go unmilked if they can help it. However, as the required yield of delicious green dairy has increased from thousands to millions, the recycling has become increasingly excessive. It is now unusual NOT to see whole trilogies looking and feeling like three levels of the same game. Yet, somehow, game publishers are able to convince us that every one of those entries is fresh enough to buy. When the original has enough obvious flaws to be fixed then this task is easy but what if it does not? What if the first title is not Assassin’s Creed but Bioshock? Well, then game creators have to get very creative… or:
Do you remember what gaming was like before Fortnite entered the gaming space? One of the biggest arguments was about loot boxes. Now we have conversations about crossovers, battle passes, and community outreach.
Idk. Loot boxes did disappear and battle passes and in game purchases are all cosmetic. We get free weapons and maps post launch, any gameplay affecting content. I could care less about all the cosmetics.
I absolutely hated the days where weapons were locked behind a less than 1% chance lootbox pull where it'd take 5+ hours to have enough tokens to do a single pull and lazy remastered/remake maps cost you $15 each wave or $50 for the season pass that you didn't know what you'd get and these maps were only available to those that bought it so you get a smaller pool of players match with.
Call of duty can simply not copy the bad aspects of Fortnite? Or is that too out of this world? Like COD, a realistic shooter-just HAD to have Nicki Minaj running around? Or super heroes?
I prefer the battle passes with free maps than the $50 season pass that divided the community. I definitely feel that Fortnite had some influence on CoD having loot boxes with Blackout being introduced in 2018 with Black Ops 4.
Actually Fortnite bullshit ruined Unreal Tournament. Epic are sellouts and I will never have that shitty store on my PC, fuck them and that shit bag Tim Sweeney. At least the community keeps the games alive, I still play UT2004.
The Black Ops Gulf War leaks continue with a list of weapon descriptions giving more info on what you can expect from new and returning weapons.
Recently, players of Modern Warfare 3 and Warzone were met with a new bundle featuring the B.E.A.S.T. Glove, inspired by King Kong's armament in the Godzilla x Kong movie. However, the $80 price tag attached to this themed accessory left many Call of Duty fans feeling underwhelmed.
Morons that allow themselves to be milked continuously by this company is the definition of irony.
Spend more $$ and you'll end up In easier lobbies so you win both ways when ya spend that cash
Controversy in the COD community feels like it happens within an alternate timeline. Activision will take the piss with something, there will be a momentary fuss about it, and then they will forget about it and carry on anyway. Repeat this cycle literally every year for the rest of time.
I'm so tired of hearing about what they're doing with this game, its never going to change and it's never going to value the consumer over money, furthermore the people who engage so heavily in the microtransactions I guess allegedly are having a blast and can't wait to do it some more this year when the new version of the game drops.
Good article, most of them true; especially multilplayer. I don't understand why now every game has to have it. I never get why every industry follows what is successful and tries to copy it, instead of innovate and make something successful for themselves. That's why we now have countless military shooters (and shooters in general). I bet that if someone releases a chess game that sells 12 million, we will have every developer implementing chess in every game...
The worst problem is that if successful game sells 10 million (say it's outstandingly a lot), then every other developer and publisher wants to sell the same amount, and if their game sells 1 million less, they consider it a failure! (same goes for movies and tv shows).
What happened to the times where a developer wanted to make a game because it was a great idea, or because it raised the bar in story telling, technology, AI, etc? I can imagine that now, publishers green light games on the potential to sell the same amount as COD.
It's a shame
Great point about 'just add snow', lol. Gears of War 2 was another one.
Bring it to consoles as a FPS and ruin it .. Classic method.
I like how the examples listed for shoehorning multiplayer are games I've only heard good things about in regards to the multiplayer. Just because it isn't need doesn't mean it devalues the game to include it.
Thanks for reading everyone and thanks to Boysangur for submitting and thanks to the brass for approving.