159 réponses à ce sujet

[HiddenInWar]

(please dont kill me)

So I was thinking about making a video game discussion
thread like so many here, and decided this would be a good place to start.
Discuss away if you wish about any trailers or news regarding the game or
anything really!  

[Eternal Phoenix]

When there's something strange, in your neighbour hood...who you gonna call?

[HiddenInWar]

Elton John is dead wrote...

When there's something strange, in your neighbour hood...who you gonna call?

Confirmed: COD Ghosts to take place in the same universe as ghostbusters.

[Battlebloodmage]

Elton John is dead wrote...

When there's something strange, in your neighbour hood...who you gonna call?

Your insurance company.

[Eternal Phoenix]

No seriously though, what's so great about CoD? I hear people call it realistic but I've watched multiplayer gameplay videos of Blacks Ops (both of them) and what I see is:

• Fast gameplay.
• Lucky trigger kills.
• Everyone sprinting.

Now call me old fashioned but I don't think men make out with one another during battle, least of all with their enemies as Battlebloodmage's avatar depicts. So I am quite baffled when someone (often with improper grammar) comes and tells me that CoD is realistic. Ghost Recon is realistic. GRAW is realistic. ARMA is realistic. CoD is *not* realistic and certainly not anymore so than Halo because I've watched documentaries of troops over in the Middle East and they ain't running straight up to the enemy shooting at em.

So I really wonder how CoD is better than Halo when the shooting looks a mess and is too fast. Halo feels solid and grounded. Switching a weapon should occur after a brief pause and not just where the weapon instantly appears in your hand. That's not realism. God, I ain't no shooter fan but not only does each CoD game look the same but the graphics are sh*te. CoD fans often boast of its graphics but I just checked Black Ops 2 out and Halo 3 looks better.

Treyarch really need to up their game. To think I was even thinking of purchasing one of these games because my friends play them. Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick to Halo. After watching some CoD videos I understand the hate these games get. I hope they end. These abominations belong in the very depths of The Abyss itself.

"You've never played CoD? OMG!" - A friend

Jesus Christ, after the crap I watched on YouTube, I never will. Jesus Christ, I am absolutely horrified these games sell as much as they do. Call me bias without ever playing one of these games but I find it hard to believe that anyone could call them better than Halo when the aiming and shooting mechanics appear to be a mess. I wouldn't be surprised if Bethesda is actually behind CoD because the combat looks as awful as the shooting mechanics of Fallout 3.

Of course the game with actual satisfying FPS combat would have to be DE:HR. In that, a shot-gun actually felt like one and had the impact on enemies too.

Don't get me wrong. Maybe CoD is fun to play but one only need watch any gameplay video of it to see it's not in any way realistic and I see nothing outstanding with its multiplayer. In conclusion I don't understand how it could sell so much. Again, maybe it's somewhat fun to play but I don't how it's different from all those other military shooters out there. It's not realistic and the combat is too fast paced.

Admit it OP, I just brought life to the topic.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 18 mai 2013 - 02:44 .

[RobRam10]

I have never liked the CoD games. I played the second, third and the fourth pretty much a forgettable game for me. However the only thing I would say that I liked about Cod is the Ghost teaser in which every fanboi was like "wuts that ****, why no gameplay?!" I have a weakness for masked warriors.

[UnderlAlDyingSun]

Elton John is dead wrote...

No seriously though, what's so great about CoD? I hear people call it realistic but I've watched multiplayer gameplay videos of Blacks Ops (both of them) and what I see is:

• Fast gameplay.
  
• Lucky trigger kills.
  
• Everyone sprinting.

Now call me old fashioned but I don't think men make out with one another during battle, least of all with their enemies as Battlebloodmage's avatar depicts. So I am quite baffled when someone (often with improper grammar) comes and tells me that CoD is realistic. Ghost Recon is realistic. GRAW is realistic. ARMA is realistic. CoD is *not* realistic and certainly not anymore so than Halo because I've watched documentaries of troops over in the Middle East and they ain't running straight up to the enemy shooting at em.

So I really wonder how CoD is better than Halo when the shooting looks a mess and is too fast. Halo feels solid and grounded. Switching a weapon should occur after a brief pause and not just where the weapon instantly appears in your hand. That's not realism. God, I ain't no shooter fan but not only does each CoD game look the same but the graphics are sh*te. CoD fans often boast of its graphics but I just checked Black Ops 2 out and Halo 3 looks better.

Treyarch really need to up their game. To think I was even thinking of purchasing one of these games because my friends play them. Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick to Halo. After watching some CoD videos I understand the hate these games get. I hope they end. These abominations belong in the very depths of The Abyss itself.

"You've never played CoD? OMG!" - A friend

Jesus Christ, after the crap I watched on YouTube, I never will. Jesus Christ, I am absolutely horrified these games sell as much as they do. Call me bias without ever playing one of these games but I find it hard to believe that anyone could call them better than Halo when the aiming and shooting mechanics appear to be a mess. I wouldn't be surprised if Bethesda is actually behind CoD because the combat looks as awful as the shooting mechanics of Fallout 3.

Of course the game with actual satisfying FPS combat would have to be DE:HR. In that, a shot-gun actually felt like one and had the impact on enemies too.

Don't get me wrong. Maybe CoD is fun to play but one only need watch any gameplay video of it to see it's not in any way realistic and I see nothing outstanding with its multiplayer. In conclusion I don't understand how it could sell so much. Again, maybe it's somewhat fun to play but I don't how it's different from all those other military shooters out there. It's not realistic and the combat is too fast paced.

Admit it OP, I just brought life to the topic.

[*]Nobody EVER said CoD was realistic. Arma II probably takes the cake but it isn't PVP and it more or less a chore to play. CoD doesn't need to be it's a twitch based shooter, and the absolute best at what it does. I'm primarily a battlefield player, pick up and play experience I get with Call of Duty is unrivaled. And contrary to what a lot of people say, CoD has a definite learning curve. If fact, I'm still improving and getting better. The combat is rewarding and fast paced and the games afford a lot of customization options.
[*]Neither is it luck based. Sure you can spray and get a kill, but your performance shows throughout the match. I can die 5 times to B.S. only to come back with 60 kills, a boat load of killstreaks, and tons of lulz. It's a fun game, and it plays differently depending on lobby and gametype. I enjoy that aspect.
[*]I'll note about halo as well. Sorry, halo lacks any sort of compelling customization options and plays slow by compare ( well 4 is an improvement ). It doesn't take any more skill than CoD or Gears, they borrow on different talents.
[*]I have no effing idea why this points are appearing. Anyway, Gears and Battlefield take the longest to master. If you want a better sense of realism with polished gameplay and many mechanics to master...play BF3. The bad battlefield players outnumber , proportionally, the bad call of duty players so I suppose your average player probably wants the more reflex oriented option.

[Naughty Bear]

Despite how much I despise CoD and the way it's developed but I admit I've had some fun times with the game.

Zombis is very very fun and engaging and TD, my friends all join each others session and purposely go against each other- and it becomes seriously competitive but we all have a good laugh.

[LPPrince]

Modern Warfare 2 is the only CoD I'll play anymore. After next gen consoles come out, I guess thats out the window.

I'm not planning on picking up any new CoD games since I always go back to MW2. Perhaps if I miss it too much once I move on to next gen I'll get a new one, but I doubt it.

[Eternal Napalm]

Let me tell you about CoD.

The lag and lag compensation makes the game unplayable in BO2. You die all the time because of lag, and often hit detection is atrocious as well. If you are in a lobby with lag, you either are on the plus or minus side of this, often statistically the minus side. Elpresador has a hilarious channel where he rages over this fact and provides video evidence that is clear. It's funny stuff. Also, there are too many campers (albeit not as many as BF3) who are scared little kids hiding in corners aiming down sights to milk scorestreaks. Doesn't matter how good you are. It also has too many overpowered weapons and hackers. Lag switching occurs, and the shotguns and sniper rifles are overpowered to the point it breaks the game. Lots of quick scoping morons, too. You don't stand a chance unless you are on the positive side of lag, which isn't often.

In short...CoD is broken.

[Eternal Napalm]

Also, the target finder, a scope that reduces almost all gun recoil and provides big red boxes and highlights players in them, even if otherwise undetectable on screen, is the dumbest and most OP thing I have ever seen ever. If I had a dollar for every time I died from a lmg with a target finder, I would be rich.

[Volus Warlord]

LPPrince wrote...

Modern Warfare 2 is the only CoD I'll play anymore. After next gen consoles come out, I guess thats out the window.

I'm not planning on picking up any new CoD games since I always go back to MW2. Perhaps if I miss it too much once I move on to next gen I'll get a new one, but I doubt it.

They really went in a downward spiral after that in every capacity. I don't get how they can rehash something and manage to make it worse. Every year!

[AventuroLegendary]

I remember having great times with CODs 2, 4 and 5. Sure, they weren't the "best shooters ever made" but they were great and interesting at the time. However, after the series of bland, rehashed, and unbalanced games after those, color me jaded.

Modifié par LegendaryAvenger, 18 mai 2013 - 04:50 .

[LPPrince]

Well, from what I heard Black Ops 2 had a pretty damn good campaign. I guess thats an improvement over MW3 since EVERYTHING about that game sucked hard.

But even going back to MW2, things still needed work. If it were up to me, I'd remove grenade launchers entirely, and restrict them to a random killstreak you MIGHT get through a care package. The reason being, no one uses them to support their gunfire, they just use them to do all the work, and in that case, they are OP. Example- "Pro Piping", where they are fired at the start of a match at a spot near the enemy spawn to get quick kills in seconds. Though I believe thats been stopped in subsequent CoDs.

Also, and this will get me some flak- I'd remove sniper rifles almost entirely. Again, they are abused, used by players as effectively long distance shotguns, going for quick scopes that take advantage of aim assist, setting up lobbies to farm quick or no scopes, and generally will lose you team games because everyone wants to get that cool shot to put on youtube, not realizing it just makes them one of a ton of people not doing something special.

Maps in CoD are generally far too small for a sniper rifle's effective use. Some are big enough- thinking of MW2, Wasteland, Derail, and a couple of others would be fine for them. So what I'd do is test which of the following two ideas works better in practice- turning a sniper rifle into a random killstreak you may earn through a care package(like the "noob tubes" I suggested earlier) or leaving a sniper rifle or two randomly placed on large maps so that whoever happens to find them can then retreat and go to work.

Anything to reduce the level of "stop that crap" that happens in CoD.

[AventuroLegendary]

LPPrince wrote...


Also, and this will get me some flak- I'd remove sniper rifles almost entirely. Again, they are abused, used by players as effectively long distance shotguns, going for quick scopes that take advantage of aim assist, setting up lobbies to farm quick or no scopes, and generally will lose you team games because everyone wants to get that cool shot to put on youtube, not realizing it just makes them one of a ton of people not doing something special.

I agree that quick/no-scoping should be discouraged. It's no fun losing because your entire team wanted to put something "cool" on youtube.

EDIT: Misinterpreted.

Modifié par LegendaryAvenger, 18 mai 2013 - 06:34 .

[LPPrince]

The logic behind having a sniper rifle in a CoD game just doesn't make any sense.

CoD devs discourage camping, and want players constantly moving and looking to get kills. Okay.

In that case, why include a weapon type who's purpose is purely to sit back and kill people from afar?

I can accept sniper rifles in Battlefield because hey, those maps are huuuge. It works(in theory).

If I get killed by a sniper in Battlefield 3, I'm not bothered. I just go, "Aww damn. Okay where's he at?" *watches killer cam*

If I get killed by a sniper in CoD, it depends on how the kill was achieved. The fact that the term "hard scope" exists is stupid as hell- thats how sniper rifles are intended to be used, but regardless, if I get "hard scoped" I have no problem.

If I get no scoped from two feet away, again. No problem. I mean what else was the dude gonna do.

But if its a quick scope utilizing aim assist from some far as hell location, thats annoying as hell. That DEFINITELY needs to be ended, but CoD devs don't think so apparently. So many players partake in it that they won't do it. I think they might even enjoy the quickscoping, which is sad.

So I won't support the franchise any more going forward.

[MarchWaltz]

I don't like COD MP...but the single player is FANTASTIC.

[bussinrounds]

Isn't the single player just moving from one linear corridor to the next, with little thought aside from which respawing enemy to shoot next, en route to the next cutscene ?

SP and MP are crap in these modern military FPS. Bring back the tactical shooters like the old R6 games (Raven Shield and earlier), Ghost Recon 1, SWAT 3/4.. The only ones doing anything semi-realistic anymore are Bohemia, which is sad.

Also, bring back the Doom style games with large non-linear levels, backtracking, lots of rooms and tunnels with different sizes, well placed hordes...

[Overdosing]

I feel like the single player should have a female soldier (playable or not) in the main unit. Just saying...

[HiddenInWar]

Overdosing wrote...

I feel like the single player should have a female soldier (playable or not) in the main unit. Just saying...

Agreed.

[HiddenInWar]

Eternal Napalm wrote...

Also, the target finder, a scope that reduces almost all gun recoil and provides big red boxes and highlights players in them, even if otherwise undetectable on screen, is the dumbest and most OP thing I have ever seen ever. If I had a dollar for every time I died from a lmg with a target finder, I would be rich.

I love the target finder. I think it was the most original addition in the MP so far.

Sometimes enemies wont show up in the red (probably because of the Blind Eye perk)

[HiddenInWar]

J. Reezy wrote...

People still play Call of Duty?

Of course not.

Modifié par HiddenInWar, 19 mai 2013 - 02:18 .

[LPPrince]

Well, I wasn't one of those people giving them a sale. Hah