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.
40°
40°
170°
110°
Ad 
70°
10°
20°
10°
30°
40°
How boring. At least the artists and Graphic designers got to do something new for this one
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.
After you hit a billion dollars in sales, I think you lose your soul man.
NO! his/her comments are mostly logic that wins.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And what about the weapons? I've looked on Elite and discovered that I've only EVER been killed by 6 different guns!!!
MP7, PWD, MTAR , Type 25, S12 and SVU AS.
I've been killed over 500 times and excluding explosives, knifes and streaks its the same 6 guns.
To be fair the S12 and SVU have only killed me 4 and 12 times so we can even count them out.
So its basically everyone running in circles with no choke points using the SAME 4 guns!!!!!
Its got very boring. But as all my friends are scared of Halo 4's MP because it takes real skill I have no choice but to join them in BO2.
If you actually hated the game, you would simply go sell it used and get some of your money back. But you are so addicted to both the gameplay and the opportunity to complain to everyone that you’ll hang onto it and keep playing for 15 hours a week.
Yes, the PS3 version got less love than 360 (I own PS3/Copy), but it's not the game breaker some sites report it to be....
Truth be told, the same people who complain about rehash COD games...still go out and purchase them!
So maybe COD games are for those two faced dummies who STILL go out and buy them ALL year after year..
IMHO they're the real idiots!
No, but the commenting fields for the game is THE playground for the worst gamers in the gaming community. A playground mostly for children and sadly now and then some adults.
We all know them as trolls, and gamers around the world just hate them.
And I did notice that the gun roster just seems to be small, or people just end up using the same 3-4 weapons. It plays slightly different, but of course it is the same game underneath.
Still not sure what I want to do, but I'm leaning towards getting rid of it while the TIV is still high enough.
I've been using more SMG's than any other COD game because I know someone is either waiting around the corner, camping in a crevice or area or waiting to kill me from behind. I've been killed more times from behind than ever too, which again, falls back to the map layouts. Which is funny because I actually think some of these maps are quite refreshing, aside from the way they were planned out.
It's a catch-22 for me because I hated MW3 immediately, and I'd like to stick with BO2, but at the same time I can just as easily trade in BO2 and play MW2 or BO1 if I get the need for COD. Maybe BF3 has spoiled me a bit because of how ridiculously huge those maps are, but still...There really is very little line of sight in these maps and that is a huge concern.
"Babies and people who have brainpower less than a 1GHz processor will enjoy it." - should be on the game box.
This is why the field of view is capped at 80. Any more explosions and ridiculous vehicle segments crammed into a higher FOV would cause the said babies brains to fry. I've seen it happen. Little puffs of smoke come out of their ears like a Looney Tunes cartoon.
Me? I play Wargame European Escalation. This game is far beyond the comprehension of COD babies.
It makes for a fun multiplayer scene.