Top
220°

EA: Call of Duty's had it too easy

Activision "hasn't had" any real competition for years, says publisher

Read Full Story >>
computerandvideogames.com
The story is too old to be commented.
GasTankKiller2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

I would completely agree that Activision hasn't had any real competition for some time now. I think Activision has grown very arrogant over the years because of this.

gamingdroid2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

Really? Arrogant?

Activision has actually been very humble this year with all the verbal attacks from EA. To me, they show confidence as opposed to arrogance.

Ironically, FPS is among the most competitive sub-genre in the most competitive genre shooters. EA tried to put up competition with Medal of Honors and Bad Company 2, but by EA's own admission "it was too easy" for CoD.

edit: @Trunk Jr
***They brainwashed all CoD fans into thinking 60 fps is a must and anything under is unplayable when in fact almost all fps on consoles from halo to BC2 have been using 30 and has never been a problem until activision brought this up.***

60fps do definitely gives it a smoother feel, and that makes CoD feel more like an arcade FPS something neither Halo or BC2 is. CoD isn't called "twitch" shooter for no reason.

Of course, Activison is going to talk up their technology and advantage, but that isn't arrogrance. It's simply expressing your selling point.

***When EA was gloating their engine, activison came out right away with "we can do destruction as well"***

I don't see why Activision can't? What's the issue, as if it is a big deal anyhow?

Activision do have it's moments, but in recent times it is hardly arrogance.

If anything, Activision has been pretty nice all along from what I have seen. They don't spout nonsense like we want your franchise to "rot from the core".

Trunkz Jr2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

Are you kidding gamingdrioud?!

They brainwashed all CoD fans into thinking 60 fps is a must and anything under is unplayable when in fact almost all fps on consoles from halo to BC2 have been using 30 and has never been a problem until activision brought this up.

When EA was gloating their engine, activison came out right away with "we can do destruction as well"

Humble is NOT the word I'd be using for Activision in this case.

zerox5052630d ago Show
Biggest2630d ago

I love that awesome argument.

"***When EA was gloating their engine, activison came out right away with "we can do destruction as well"***

I don't see why Activision can't? What's the issue, as if it is a big deal anyhow?"

It's a good thing that you can't see why they don't have active destruction. They can't see why they don't either. Nice move though. If you (they) can't do something, it's always smart to act as if it isn't worthwhile anyway. I remember some great technologies like HDMI and 3D being deemed unimportant. . . Until they were important of course.

gamingdroid2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

***It's a good thing that you can't see why they don't have active destruction. They can't see why they don't either. Nice move though. ***

Well, clearly destructive environments makes all games sooo much better! We should just add it blindly to all games!!!

My point being, it depends on the game. It's not a big deal if doesn't have it, no more than not having 60fps. It all depends on the game mechanic if it adds value or not.

***If you (they) can't do something, it's always smart to act as if it isn't worthwhile anyway. I remember some great technologies like HDMI and 3D being deemed unimportant. . . Until they were important of course.***

What? Importance is related to time. 5-6 years ago, HDMI was hardly important. Now a days it is the standard, but it doesn't mean I would pay extra for HDMI 5-6 years ago when TVs barely had them. Now it is essentially free!

3D might be important when it is the standard, but it is hardly important now. In fact, you couldn't even call 3D a fad right now, since it had to be popular to consider as such....

Biggest2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

You don't understand my point. Being unavailable is not the same as being unimportant. You may not have had interest or money for HDMI 5-6 years ago. That does not change the fact that HDMI was the best way to experience high definition entertainment. It added more value than any other connection. The same can be said for 3D when implemented properly. The movie Avatar in 3D was one of the best theater experiences ever. It happened to also be popular, but the popularity is not what made it important.

The destruction in Battlefield 3 makes sense and SHOULD be important to all similar games. Why would a bullet NOT destroy/deform a wall or obstacle? Why would a rocket NOT destroy a wall? The players complaining about campers, and their polar opposite, wonder the same thing. The only reason destruction is not important to the COD team (if they even said it wasn't) is because they can't (probably just haven't, but can't seems more dramatic, yeah?) make it happen. It may be unavailable for them, but it is still very important. Please try not to water down the real issue by adding it to blanket statements that have nothing to do with the conversation. Destruction doesn't make sense for many games. No one said anything about all of anything. No one mentioned blindly adding anything to anything. Actually, no one mentioned adding anything to anything at all. CLEARLY you ALWAYS like to imagine arguments that aren't there ALL of the time. I might be reaching with that last statement, but it's no big deal. Right?

gamingdroid2629d ago (Edited 2629d ago )

***It added more value than any other connection.***

DVI would have done just fine... thank you very much. HDMI just adds audio in one cable, hardly the "best value". Convenient? Yes, best value, I think not.

***The movie Avatar in 3D was one of the best theater experiences ever.***

Really? You must have had a very poor experience in the theater then, because my best experience was when I saw Imax for the first time. At the time, nothing could compete with it in terms of screen size, the fidelity and how close you were to the screen. It is still impressive today a decade later.

***The destruction in Battlefield 3 makes sense and SHOULD be important to all similar games.***

LOL... so just not "all" games, just "all similar games". If it was so important, I bet you destructible environments would be far more abundant, but it isn't which proves my point. It's nice, but hardly an important game mechanic especially on the scale of BF.

Because it is realistic, doesn't mean it makes a game fun. One of the reasons why I like to play games, because most of them are made for fun, not to simulate reality, case in point Mario Kart.

If you are going talk about realism, getting shot even once would probably put you out of the war, let alone have you recharge behind a wall... perhaps we should just implement that. I'm sure that would make games much more fun and not irritate.

Maybe destructive environments would make CoD better, maybe not, but that is up to the developer to figure out, but to claim "most similar games" on the scale of BF would benefit from it is ridiculous and ignorant.

***The only reason destruction is not important to the COD team (if they even said it wasn't) is because they can't (probably just haven't, but can't seems more dramatic, yeah?) make it happen.***

Yes, yes, we all know NOT IMPLEMENTED means NOT POSSIBLE! I'm sure your world must be full of potential with that attitude....

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2629d ago
Septic2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

Activision hasn't had any real competition...UNTIL NOW.

Make no mistake about it. Activision really are concerned about what BF3 is going to do to the COD franchise.

Understand the fact that, BF3 has hyper-accelerated the collapse of the COD franchise, something which would have occurred anyway judging by how Guitar Hero and the Tony Hawk franchises fizzled away.

It is also interesting to draw a parralel between Tony Hawk and Skate (the latter of which actually attempted to innovate and is rather amusingly, very similar to what BF3 is to COD- more realistic, intuitive, innovative and visually impressive- compared to an arcade, over-the-top, great gaming formula made stale from repeated recycling).

It was inevitable that someone would bang in the nail in the coffin- its just that now, the nail has an EA endorsement.

E2M2630d ago

You know I really would have been behind DICE but there arrogance and the hype which it will never be able to live up to disgusts me.

Have you questioned why the call of duty franchise is where it is today? ,(to note I am no fan of Call of duty havent really played it since CoD 4) well the simple answer is that it has a bloody good formula and yes many gamers are finding it stale now but the fact of the matter is however realistic most other fps games have been or tried to be innovative they just haven't been able to make a better formula which also highlights the underlying lack of innovation the fps genre is facing right now

Don't get me wrong battlefield is no where near a bad game
but all its showing is glittery graphics and its shiny new engine,
The Call of duty franchise is still successfully keeping most players interested (mostly causals now). I don't see
battlefield having done that. I mean gamers will give
bf3 a shot but I doubt they will be on it for very long.
I mean this battlefield>CoD dispute is purely based on the
hype and marketing EA is doing. I mean I could be wrong but thats so unlikely

Gran Touring2629d ago

"You know I really would have been behind DICE but there arrogance and the hype which it will never be able to live up to disgusts me. "

DICE isn't hyping up Battlefield. It's EA's pr.

mugoldeneagle032630d ago

But it's not like they didn't earn their spot a top the industry. COD4 was a game changer, and even if the games after that haven't gone down in quality, it's not as though they just created some half assed game that managed to sell millions of copies.

And even though I'm glad someones finally stepping toe to toe with Activision and MW3, it's not like EA wasn't making FPS since COD4 came out...

Can't wait to see how this one turns out. I'm getting both, but I think sales will be closer than people think. 60-40 in favor of MW3.

kparks2630d ago

Really EA has the nerve to say someone has had it easy lol they need to put a foot in there mouth so they dont look quite as DUMB *COUGH* MADDEN NCAA + need for speed!! activision may be arrogant but EA is down right conceited!! and the ppl from acti and IW say they got good games and they like BF3. and all EA does is try to bash and talk smack from what i read i got BF3 on pre order and ill pick MW3 up when its released but EA is acting retarded.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2629d ago
solidworm2630d ago

Hope this doesnt mean BF3 will play anything like COD.

chak_2630d ago

have you seen any video?

if yes, how can you think that seriously?

NuclearDuke2630d ago

Is Electronic Arts saying that the Bad Company series and Medal of Honor they published was so bad that it left little to no competition for Call of Duty?

Way to go, not that i disagree - I think those games sucked, but why would a publisher criticise their own developers like this?

ElDorado2630d ago

Weird you think Bad Company 2 sucked. It was a far better game than Modern Warfare 2.

NuclearDuke2630d ago

It didn't sell 20% of Modern Warfare 2 copies on any platform. It didn't have 10% of the concurrent players on any Platform. It won about 60 awards more than Bad Company 2 and it's reviews are all better than Bad Company 2's.

Yes, it didn't have dedicated servers, console or mod tools - It's still ten times better than any Bad Company game.

hardandsloppy2630d ago

Why do people insist sales=quality. I didnt know sales make the game less shit. I guess Call of Juarez the Cartel is a good game because it was at the number 1 sales spot in the UK :/

Trunkz Jr2630d ago

@NuclearDuke

As for Bad Company 2, it was never a True battlefield to begin with, I mean subtract jets and that alone you lose hundreds of fans that refuse to buy it.

BF3 is giving jets, prone, commo rose, possible mod tools in the future, they have pretty much given everything that made BC2 non buyers enough motive to buy BF3, add that with CoD fans pissed off at Activison for giving CoD games that are very similar from the last will move to BF3 = why BF3 has so many pre-orders as it stands right now.

user83971442630d ago

Please put a zombie mode in Battlefield. Zombies mode is easily the best part of call of duty.

bumnut2630d ago (Edited 2630d ago )

Please don't, zombies have no place in war games. If you want zombies play dead rising or left 4 dead.

My interest in cod ended with the arrival of zombies, it used to be a serious shooter back in the day.

raWfodog2630d ago

So you only have a problem with Treyarch's COD? IW does not do zombie...

Vandamme212630d ago

no offence
But I think EA is just jealous of Activision lol

Bonobo123452630d ago

LOL yeah, IMO there are better games coming from EA.
But they don't half talk about the competition...

I think BF3 will be better than cod, I love every game DICE has been involved in, and to be fair DICE don't seem all that interested in bashing Activision or COD, It's mostly EA I think.

SweatyFlorida2630d ago

lol well yeah. If my competition was making millions off a series where every game is nearly identical to the next one, then yah I'd be jealous as well xD

Activision got that secret recipe, and everyone wants a piece of it!

Show all comments (45)
The story is too old to be commented.