Call of Duty Advanced Warfare

Store page is up with tags like Kawaii, Point & Click, Casual, and Pixel Graphics



First to wishlist it on my friends list ... radical and Bigtime are getting slow :banana:

Minimum:
OS: Windows 7 64-Bit / Windows 8 64-Bit
DirectX: Version 11

 

Ok.... so in other words, you're looking at the reveal trailer as if it were a typical movie trailer? Where you're watching it thinking "That movie looks AWESOME"... and then you see the movie, and the only awesome bits were the bits that were shown in the trailer... the rest sucked?

Hey... while we're at it.... why don't we just say CoD 13 right up to the end of the series sucks? Cause we've seen just as much of those as we have of Advanced Warfare to make a judgement call on how the game is going to be, in your opinion.

Yes.... the trailer shows "action-y stuff".... but what are you expecting them to do? Show a trailer of nothing but freakin dialog? Yea.... THAT will surely sell a game. Unless you're talking about something like Heavy Rain... then yea, maybe. But showing scenes with a lot of action that are NOT gameplay doesn't tell you jack sh*t about how the GAME is going to be.

 

Could you just dial down the aggression a bit? You are putting way too much into what I said and taking meanings that are far beyond what I wrote.

I don't think it is that unreasonable to have some basic expectations for a franchise that has 11 similar releases, most of which were released on yearly basis. And when they release a trailer that shows nothing new enough to prove otherwise, sticking to that expectation is reasonable.

Now if you are saying that any expectations about the gameplay based on the franchise and that trailer is unreasonable because trailer didn't show gameplay, I disagree. Let's talk about some basic assumptions we all have over this game that were not shown in the trailer. What genre do you think this game will be in? Based on the trailer it could be third person action RPG for all I know. But wouldn't you agree that it would be foolish to expect anything other than a FPS UNLESS dev/publisher actively states otherwise? And within FPS genre, what sub-genre do you think Advanced Warfare will fall under? Would you say that it has equal chance of it turning out to be like Unreal Tournament as to being closer to previous Call of Duty games? What about kill-streaks and perks? They weren't shown in the trailer but do you doubt that they won't be included in the game?

I think expecting the next Call of Duty game to stick to its franchise's strengths unless proven otherwise (we both agree that it has yet to prove otherwise minus the setting that seem to be more futuristic than BO2) is a prudent and fair call to make. And believe it or not, some people don't like what CoD franchise is about (I'm indifferent but originally you were responding to lucidius and I'm assuming he's not very fond of the franchise formula).

 

Gaizo, prepare to be blown away by the princess Kenny killstreak! The Kawaii and Pixel Graphics weren't shown in the trailer

http://youtu.be/64IsP1GJMUc?t=8s

 

You obviously don't live anywhere near Southern USA haha

 

I get the idea of having expectations about a game. I get that. But to say that a game is going to suck based on two reasons... that the trailer didn't show any of the gameplay at all which didn't signify any change from the previous formula, and that a select few of it's predecessors kinda sucked (which let's face it... that's the MAIN reason people started to dislike CoD), is just odd.

As far as what could have changed.... we don't know. Nobody knows. Hell, there are probably even people at Sledgehammer that don't know what has been changed for one reason or another (Probably NDA'd out the yang now, since apparently it was revealed ahead of schedule). CoD used to be all about the kill count. More kills = more kill streaks = higher KDR = people camping to their hearts content. Then they started introducing little helpers if you get killed too many times in a row (which... some of them, as much as we hated them for their overuse*cough*Martyrdom*cough*, were helpful to eradicate a camper). Then they started essentially having different perks depending on what kind of role you were playing..... if you were just going for killcount.... if you're more of a lone gun, or if you tend to support your fellow teammate. Yes, the overall FORMULA of the game may not have changed, but the ways the game can be played has.

If you ask me, the only changes ever made to a CoD game that i'm seriously not a fan of are the ability to dive into prone (which makes for too many "Oh sh*t, i'm getting shot at.. *insta-prone*" moments), and a currency-based unlock system. Think the currency system is the one reason i've hardly touched Ghosts, even though it was the first game I picked up for my PS4 at launch. Basically makes continued play of the game pointless. Buy the gun you like the most. Buy the attachments that generally work best for it, and you can pretty much continue business as usual.

All i'm trying to say is that with the changes that they've made to perks and such in the last few iterations, who's to say Sledgehammer might not try something new? I'm waiting to see more on gameplay before i even start to judge the game.

 

Not sure short lived games as CoD even deserve such long rants. xD

 

@gaizo: 11? Where did that number come from? 1&2, MW1/2/3, WaW, BO 1&2, Ghosts... That's 9, right?

The games all have some typical "key" aspects, but they're also quite different in other regards.
Even if two games have the same "features", the outcome may be totally different.

For example: The currency system which was used for unlocks, both in Black Ops and Ghosts.
It worked very well in Black Ops and helped to balance everything out. It didn't work out all that well in Ghosts.
Killstreaks have been part of the game since Modern Warfare, yet they're quite overdone in some and more-or-less weak in others.
I assume all of the trailers of these games looked the same, yet the games themselves were quite different. Not night-and-day different, of course it's CoD, but they all have their own "taste".

@lucidus: I played some of the older titles recently and really liked them. Old love, so to say

I'm still hesistant to pre-order something again. It was a bad idea for Ghosts, even though I was happy at first to get one of the limited editions, and it was a bad idea for Battlefield 4.

 

Some people might be just tired of anything resembling CoD formula... So I don't think it's too odd for some people to have instant "urgh not again" reaction upon hearing nothing other than some rudimentary release information. Maybe it's odd that they feel the urge to comment on a franchise they have no chance of ever getting into though.

Me personally... new setting looks interesting, and I know what CoD franchise stands for so if I'm ever in the mood for that kind of experience (there is plenty of room for simple summer blockbuster experience with me) it's nice knowing that there is a relatively well established fallback option, and the new one looking more interesting than last couple is a plus. And the changes along the line that you and Radical below are talking about, yes something along the lines would probably happen and whether its for better or worse is, as you said, completely in the air. But wouldn't you agree that those changes are, as important as they are to people who are already into CoD, never really franchise changing?

Just want to restate and clarify... I don't see anything "wrong" with CoD games sticking to franchise roots... because I mean, that's the whole point of franchises, to establish a name to specific experience (hopefully a good one!) so that people can have easier time adjusting their expectation.

You missed Call of Duty 3, the console only one (even featured deployable machine guns and jeeps in some maps, both which I thought were pretty neat considering how little CoD2 deviated from first one) and someone earlier counted 11 so I just figured why not put UO into that list, hence the 11 count.

The differences you mention are indeed important. I think expecting changes within that level of detail is completely reasonable and to be expected. But those differences matter to people who are already into CoD games... more akin to balance changes (which are important) than feature changes. To draw analogy to different game, Starcraft 2 goes through lot of balance changes, all of which have deep impact on enjoyment of players who already play the game. But none of those changes will probably ever make the game appealing to people who are repulsed by the core fast paced RTS mechanics that defined Starcraft 2.

I heartily recommend resisting the urge to preorder. What little benefit we can get from preorder bonuses IMO doesn't compete with good consumer purchasing practice. Granted last few posts I have been trying to say "this will be more or less meet our expectations of franchise roots" and hence one of safest games to preorder... but I still think the simple benefit of getting into habbit of resisting preorder is far more beneficial than any preorder bonus, especially given how whacky so many game releases can be these days.

 

Yup. I only picked Ghosts up because of a Steam sale weekend. Only fair because i only play it for the SP and therefore cant be botherhed paying full price.

 

Yes, I guess it's ok for that. Still haven't finished the campaign of BO2 so far The multiplayer was a pure fail, really. Just the fact that it wouldn't work right, on a technical level, was enough to keep people from playing it and "seeing" it.

@gaizo: Yes of course, it only applies to people who're already into CoD. But, to be honest, that's already a lot of people, probably even "most" of the people?

Personally I even like these sorts of things better than trying to be something else. People want CoD, so that's what they should get.
Even if the only thing they'd do "wrong" were to put too much of "the same" into a single game, it wouldn't work out all too well. Think about the Assassin's Creed games and how they put more and more stuff in just to keep people entertained. Do people even see it that way? I don't think so.

Talking about multiplayer balance, choice and detail are the three things that make the better games stand out. Modern Warfare, World at War, Black Ops.
Maps, weapons and perks allowed for a very "personal" experience. They way you wanted to play was the way you got to play, without any major downsides.
Detail, to me, means that there's more than one way to solve a "problem". For a certain role I can use more than one gun successfully and there's more than one way to flank an enemy (or to "camp" an objective).

 

My Question...
Whats so "ADVANCED" in WWI?
CoD "ADVANCED" Warfare....
Will they use Google Glass in WWI or F-22 Lightning?
What about .50 cal?
WWI was full of rifles, small amount of handguns.

 

Well, it's not about WWI anymore, more like futuresque ****...

 

I agree. When I want non-CoD experience I don't expect multi million userbase established franchise to abandon its roots... I just look elsewhere. But when I do want CoD-esque experience, well I know where to find it.

I do have problems with CoD but it's more on the topic of meta-cultural phenomenon (and mostly with its live action ads than the actual game) than CoD as a game so yes, too off topic for here.

 

i will preorder indeed. and perk to ur face.

 

New E3 Gameplay Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sRUZ9p4oYQ

 

Well, it looks like they finally updated the engine, I'm not sure yet if it's an entirely new engine, but it's a start...

 

That looks bloody fantastic.
The facial animation are peerless.

Material quality seems phenomenal too. I can hardly believe this is Xbox One footage, will it run at 60fps on consoles like previous games ?

 

It looks a lot like cryengine to me, with a bit less eyecandy or at least it tries to "steal" some of that look.

 

Hum yes I can see the comparisons with the CryEngine but I think it has more to do with the "cinematic look" rather than engine similarities. Many games nowadays try very hard to emulate the filmic look.