Top
230°

Black Ops 2: Is Call Of Duty Just For Idiots?

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.

Read Full Story >>
whatculture.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Majin-vegeta1410d ago

Played it for about an hour or so with my lil bro and still think it's just a copy&paste game.

Irishguy951410d ago (Edited 1410d ago )

I wonder what the dev team feels like, making the same thing repeatedly for 6 years straight

How boring. At least the artists and Graphic designers got to do something new for this one

decrypt1409d ago (Edited 1409d ago )

Understand the game is being designed with 6 year old hardware in mind (consoles).

Activision wants the game to run at 60fps. For consoles to acheive 60fps the graphics must be dumbed down.

Notice you dont see any other first person shooters on console that do 60fps and feature 9 vs 9 game play and also manage to look good. This is purely due to hardware limitations of the aging consoles.

We been stuck at the same graphics level since the last 6 years due to consoles fact lol :P

Since Console gamers tend to buy the same game ever year regardless of it being the same game. Developers pretty much know:

Console gamers.. Dont care about graphics.

Hence console gamers are fed the same rehashed crap year on year lol.

NukaCola1409d ago

"I wonder what the dev team feels like, making the same thing repeatedly for 6 years straight"

After you hit a billion dollars in sales, I think you lose your soul man.

Vip3r1409d ago

I doubt the devs care really. I mean, they still get paid a lot of money for C&P'ing last years content.

LOGICWINS1410d ago

One man's trash can be another man's treasure.

ape0071410d ago

exactly and btw your comments are mostly excellent

BX811409d ago

NO! his/her comments are mostly logic that wins.

gamer2341409d ago

the campaign was fun though

bunfighterii1409d ago

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.

WolfLeBlack1409d ago

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.

LeoDDestroyer1409d ago

You missed the fact that most reviewers will mark down games for not changing much, but relax that standard when it comes to cod and that is where the problem begins.

The inconsistency is really what drives a lot of the rage. Reviewers seem to hold cod to a lower standard then any other game in that genre.

Tonester9251409d ago

Treyarch's COD changes everytime. None of them feel the same as the previous game.

kneon1409d ago

Also many reviewers will just gloss over bugs in COD that they would surely bitch about if found in another game.

matgrowcott1409d ago (Edited 1409d ago )

Largely the people that complain won't buy the game whatever happens. The developers will massively shake things up, the diehard fan (of which there are millions) will get put off by changing systems/over-complication and those that have complained for years will say "I knew COD was just a fad!"

The only thing for the developers to do is to keep the basic game and upgrade around it.

In terms of reviews: I've always taken the viewpoint that it's impossible to actually play Call of Duty and say "this is a bad game." It's fun, there's a massive community, everything works well enough (and usually improves after release). You might not enjoy it, but that's a different thing altogether.

You have to review the title, not the culture. Black Ops 2 doesn't feel tired, it doesn't feel over-the-hill, it adds a lot to an award winning formula and that's exactly what the people who buy Call of Duty want. The same but different. Knocking points off because the basics of the game are the same is like adding points in a review for Battlefield 3 because it isn't Call of Duty.

@LeoDDestroyer

I don't think most reviewers do that, but several sites may. It's not really inconsistency, but I would say that anybody who judges a game by its predecessors is doing it wrong.

It's worth mention - especially if a title has changed massively like, for instance, the Resistance series - but more as a neutral than as a "make or break" point. The only people benefiting from a critic saying Call of Duty never changes are the people who say Call of Duty never changes, and not only is that statement untrue but those people are never going to buy the game anyway.

WolfLeBlack1409d ago

I absolutely agree that from a review standpoint you can't play through any of the CoD games and call them bad: they're at the top of the FPS genre and for good reason.

I also think that saying it never changes is daft argument to make. Each iteration may not change the basics of the formula, but it always adds or improves. Black Ops II for example now has a branching storyline and strike missions, both of which are big changes for the franchise.

LeoDDestroyer1409d ago

No a good majority of the major reviewers do this. They will and often mark down games because of it similar formula to the previous one which is a standard that they don't hold cod too.

You can't complain about things never changing and then a high five to the game that never changes, be consistent. Is cod a bad game, no but at least hold it to the same standard as any other game.

braydox211409d ago

I argree i mean like you see all those sports games that come out yer after year like fifa and what flak do they get, they barley even have to touch the game. so instead of viewing COD as Game i viewed it as a sport, the Developers have created a experiance that can be enjoyed by everyone, you don't have to worry about a lack of multiplayer games and with each new installment you get a game that keeps itself modern and entertainable as well as holding its roots as a classic game. so COD a sport is how it should be seen. and if you view like that haters you'll hate it less.

Show all comments (44)
The story is too old to be commented.