Call of Duty (2014)
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/04/22/call-of-duty-2014-first-image-revealed
We've got our first image. I haven't been hyped for a COD game in a long time, and am not hyped for this one. Hopefully they change that. Without zombies, this series is nothing to me. Do a stand alone zombie game with every map ever made. Do you have any idea the amount of money you would get for that?
LoL. Me too. Gave up on it a while ago. They should find a way to spice the multiplayer. Its grown too stale for me. I don't ask for something as awesome as Titanfall(Game is super fun. Everyone should effin' play it) As it stands I still like the CoD formula, but I'm bored to hell with it. Problem is if they change anything the fanbase will go nuts and it will implode. Kind of like what happened to Halo with Reach.
Or maybe a break. A year or two would be great. I despise yearly releases. Hated them in sports game and hate them in shooters/assassin's creed. Fact I got up to Modern Warfare 3 is proof how much I liked the addictive gameplay o CoD4's metagame. Oh...and knives need to go to hell lol. I will always hate that mechanic.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Go back to the early games?They are all the same. The first Call of Duty plays the exactly the same as the last Call of Duty.
What i'm trying to say is they need to pull it apart and look at the essence of COD, what makes COD COD? Which is the fast paced frantic online play, those action sequences that are exciting to be in.
All of those things have been in every iteration of the game, though. The frantic online play, the exciting action set-pieces, it's all there in Ghosts and Black Ops 2.
The problem is just that... shit gets old. Unless it's some shitty Nintendo game like Mario, you can only keep the formula of a game going for so long.
Even with Nintendo's games, the only reason people still play Super Mario 2012943109313812 is because it only comes out once every three or four years, as opposed to semi-annually.
I agree. The Call of Duty franchise has played the same since Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.
It wouldn't be a problem if the release schedule happened every few years instead of every year.
But for some reason I still buy it because the game always comes out when I have a day off from work and would like to play some crazy SP shooter. I don't even bother with the MP because it will not be as good as BF.
They actually changed quite a bit with Ghosts. They changed the way you level up, changed the way loadouts work, change the way you get new weapons. All of these changes didn't really work out very weoo. However, they also changed killstreaks and scaled them back, which was the one really good change they did in Ghosts. Unfortunately they also borked up the maps. There's a lot of bad maps in Ghosts. Many are too big and too open. You can go too long without encountering an enemy. Of course large maps like this also give way to annoying games where everyone is sniping. Most of the maps just don't flow as well as they did in Blops 2.
They really should stop with the annual releases. They won't - it's free money, but if they care about the longevity of the series they should. I think a bi-annual COD game would be good.
That' all MP related. I don't play it anymore. I stopped after MW3.
I agree, a bi-annual COD game would be good. Then again, I think bi-annual for any series is a good thing (looking at you Assassins Creed).
Just copy what EA is doing with the BF series. One game every two years and 4-5 substantial map packs.
Kind of.
The only time when CoD was bi-annual was between the first and the second.
But.....there was an expansion pack called United Offensive, which was developed by Grey Matter that was released in 2004. Considering that United Offensive was about 6 hours long and had a different multiplayer (vehicles!), I would still consider CoD to be an annual game.