WC writes:
Every year a Call of Duty game comes out, and every year the same accusations and criticisms appear online from gamers who express themselves not to be fans of the franchise – that only empty-headed sheep go out every year and pay $50-$60 on a dressed up DLC pack with little to no progression and even less innovation. Regardless of how well the games do commercially or critically, that element of the gaming community never seems likely to quiet down, answering rebuttals with the same argument – that the games are terrible, and that fans are plainly wrong.
Following the Wii U and 3DS servers being taken offline, Call of Duty Black Ops 2 and Ghosts are officially dead.
Call of Duty players are jumping into Black Ops 2 for the final time before its Wii U servers go offline for good.
GTA 5 and Red Dead Redemption 2 leap up due to summer sales
Wow, good games never get old I guess.
CoD will always be a beast of a franchise, and how awesome is it that you can just boot it up or pop it into your Xbox and play, MS BC is really a neat feature.
Played it for about an hour or so with my lil bro and still think it's just a copy&paste game.
the campaign was fun though
I have resisted getting it so far for PS3, as everything I've read about it seems like bad news and the same issues that plagued the original BLOPS- choppy frame rate, lag and connection issues, hit detection issues- the whole thing seems off.
BUT everyone at my work has it and they've been putting the screws on me to get it- I hopefully won't cave.
As a side not, I chucked in MW3 tonight, and with servers under less strain, and all the 'dodgy' players now playing BLOPS, its been really fun- smooth games, lots of good people playing, none of the kids screaming obscenities all night.
Definition of Call of Duty games
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
The problem Call of Duty faces is a simple one: if it changes to much, fans will be complain that it's no longer Call of Duty. If they don't change it, people complain it's not changing. It's hard to win.
The second problem is exactly how much should a reviewer take off of a score for a sequel feeling like the game before it? As a sequel, it's supposed to be more of the same, just with some new features, tweaks and refinements, and whether you like it or not each new CoD title does add in some small new features, tweaks and refinements to its formula.
CoD gets a lot of flak for not changing and being released every year. But what about the LEGO games? I've just gotten yet another one through for review, the second or third in the space of a year, and yet it doesn't get much flak for it.
The final point I'd like to make is that from an unbiased viewpoint, within the FPS genre CoD is at the top of the food chain. The gameplay is slick, its intense, it's fun and they've got the formula refined in multiplayer.
So, for a proffesional reviewer, it comes down to this: CoD, from a fair standpoint, is up their with the best. But it hasn't changed massively over the years. What score should it therefore get? Do you take away loads of points, or just a little? It's a tough call to make, and one that reviewers will always get hate for, regardless of which direction they choose to go in.