Call of Duty Advanced Warfare

How nice of you to point out the very flaw in your ENTIRE argument! Not only pointing out that the reveal doesn't show anything but a cinematic scene and potential gameplay cinematics (which we can't say is or will be one way or the other), since it doesn't really show ANYTHING that could be used to even compare it to another game... but might i point something else out again?

And this goes for everyone saying "It's more of the same, blah blah blah"....

SLEDGEHAMMER games. Not the typical Treyarch/Infinity Ward back and forth that it tends to be. The only CoD game that Sledgehammer made was MW3. Quit basing opinions on how one game is going to be by comparing it to the other 10.

If you were new to Star Wars, and decided to watch Episode 1 of 6 first... would you still really want to continue to the next 5? Yea... probably not.

 

How is that a "flaw" in his argument? His argument is classic inductive argument.

P1. X happens a lot

For his argument, that translates into--Past 10 or 11 games in this franchise have not changed all that much through all their iteration (with exception to probably MW).

P2. There is no new evidence to suggest that X won't happen again

Translation into this argument--The trailer for the next entry into the series doesn't indicate any significant change.

Conclusion. X will probably happen again.

Translation--Therefore, next entry into the series probably won't alter the formula that the series has been using.

The whole "trailer shows nothing new" fits perfectly well as an inductive argument the way I see it.

Now an interesting rebuttal is as you pointed out, this is a RELATIVELY new studio working on it, but I don't see Sledgehammer's inclusion into the mix as enough to warrant overriding the past 10 or 11 entries. I mean, was MW3 really all that different?

 

Yeah that is why i didn't liked Ghosts at all...

 

maybe something like what was the name of ps3 title? World war 1 setting but it was against aliens. the army tech was enhanced etc.

 

Apologies for my outburst people. I'm an admin on my own board so should know better really. Thanks to whomever changed the title finally, I feel a bit of a dick head tbh and rightly so.

Moving on I think we can all understand everyone's trepedation towards this when Ghosts was heralded to be far more than it ever was prior to release graphically and gameplay wise. Same old is same old with CoD and with Activision and that's the lesson that needs to be learned.

Expect the expected.

 

The amount of un-needed bollocks that the publishers tell us is no surprise gamers loose their cool.

So your game doesnt support tess, physx, friggin native AA, while the game better be damn good then since you have no distractions, then so what.. just say so. Why allow early reviews and user complaints to destroy your sales.

 

The last team who could decide what new features should go into the new CoD and how to make it stand out from former titles left after MW2.

Now you have your standard developer puppets under pressure by their publisher. That's why expecting something based on the last titles is a totally realistic option.

 

:3eyes: derpity derp?

The MW IW was not the same IW who developed Ghosts. It was Neversoft and the remnants of IW. Did that really change anything for the series? Nope, unless you found the Riley memes a killer feature. What next? If Fifa gets a new studio will you be all excited about change there too?

And yeah, my first star wars movie was episode 2 so derpity derp to you too. I love episodes 3 & 5, the rest no longer hold my interest.

 

Is anyone else interested in not (key word: Not) making this thread another watch dogs.

Who gives a toss, its COD. Activision won, and as gamers,we lost.

 

MP-wise I like the idea behind Call of Duty Online: It has all kinds of maps from the different games.
People have their favorite maps from each title and they'd happily keep playing those. With such a number of games, it's easy to have loads of different, high-quality maps at hand.

If they "simply" added all, or at least most, of the weapons to this it'd be a huge "sandbox" multiplayer game with a great amount of combinations.
I guess, honestly, that most people would be happy with that. They like the core formula, that's what they want to play, and that's what they should get.

Campaign is a different animal though and I must admit I always liked to have it in place to set the "scenery" for multiplayer. It's no must though, really.
The Treyarch titles always had something special and MW is a classic, simply put. MW2 and MW3 had their moments but as many would agree, those are the "main" popcorn / Michael Bay shooters.

Still hoping to see the series go back to an "older" scenario. World at War, Black Ops, something like that.

 

There's nothing wrong with Michael Bay shooters imo. First time i saw those 2 nukes going up in the air in MW1 i felt really compelled to storm into that base and get into the control center to stop them. That was great atmosphere, because it wasnt so over the top and realistic.

 

That's what I thought. But they tried to do even louder stuff in MW2, while keeping out some of the rather quiet elements. Still no bad game, but much more popcorn. MW3 was "popcorn only", both in the campaign and in multiplayer.
I always liked the element of choice, the variety. MW has it, WaW has it, BO has it.
MW2 and BO2 are still good games (talking about mp), good CoDs, but they aren't the "masterpieces" some of the others are. Less variation, less choice, less "realistic approach".

 

Nuketown 2050?

 

Well, I'm not into that map but yes, I'm sure it'd be one of the community's favorites.

Each game has at least a handful of great maps. And there's more than a handful of games. All that makes a load of great maps, right?

5-10-15 maps from each game, around 10 "genuine" gametypes, imagine the number of combinations!

 

Why isn't TreyArch making the new CoD? Did they merge with Sledgehammer?

 

No, they have 3 studios now. It'll be Treyarch's turn next year.
More time is a good thing in my book.

 

I guess Activision decided each developer should have more time to make a new CoD, now they have 3 teams instead 2. And it wasnt TreyArch's turn to release in 2014. Maybe next year.


[EDIT]
Argh - Ninja'ed

 

Ah okay, i'm excited about their next title.

 

That's great and all, but that would also mean, that people wouldn't need to buy a full price + dlcs every year



Though I must admit, that this kind of a game with mp only and maps/weapons from all eras would be something I'd like to see, buy and play.

 

People seem to love skins & stuff, for example. I'd highly doubt the revenue from that is as "micro" as payment running by that name
As a former server owner it's also nothing new to me to have some sort of monthly fee.

So instead of getting a new "game" each year, buy new DLC each year, hope they don't f*ck up each year, I'd happily keep all the maps / modes and whatever I initially paid for and enjoy the game with lots of other players.
Right now, on PC, it's quite fragmented and sometimes hard to find a specific game (if you're looking for something other than core TDM). If all this were a combined player base, finding games or a nice server would be much easier.