TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Gaming Forum
-- No more Call of Duty

No more Call of Duty

I heard there stopping making Call of Duty

Yeah, asides from the new 3 CoD games that are in the works, they�ve totally stopped.

i ask myself every day, what the fuck can they add to COD that'll make it interesting.

abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING

the franchise deserves to die. infinity ward is a bunch of twats that made their rise because of 2011 and their work on medal of honor allied assault. they got too big and full of themselves in the end. sooner or later, they will die, and i can't wait for that day to come. i hate IW with a passion

also, i have hope the new MOH will make CODMW2 look like a pile of shit

No, there will still be COD games (one of them will even be a 3rd-person action-adventure style game). Activision is just cutting ties with Infinity Ward (no doubt due to the unacceptable number of glitches and patches required to fix their broken MW2 game. That should teach them that public betas are always a good idea).

MOH will be nothing like MW2, much like BC2 is nothing like it. MW, and COD in general, is an arcade-shooter. MOH is a series that tries to be more realistic. For that reason, they can�t be directly compared. In fact, it�s hard to compare the COD series to anything else, because it is a LOW-HEALTH arcade shooter, which separates it from games like Halo, Quake, and Unreal Tournament, while at the same time, the arcade elements seperate it from games like Rainbow Six, Bad Company, or Medal of Honour. That�s why it�s such a popular series... it stands out from the crowd.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam No, there will still be COD games (one of them will even be a 3rd-person action-adventure style game). Activision is just cutting ties with Infinity Ward (no doubt due to the unacceptable number of glitches and patches required to fix their broken MW2 game. That should teach them that public betas are always a good idea).

didnt activision only fire the 2 senior employees from IW? IW are still making another CoD i thought?

quote:

Originally posted by Spam MOH will be nothing like MW2, much like BC2 is nothing like it. MW, and COD in general, is an arcade-shooter. MOH is a series that tries to be more realistic. For that reason, they can�t be directly compared. In fact, it�s hard to compare the COD series to anything else, because it is a LOW-HEALTH arcade shooter, which separates it from games like Halo, Quake, and Unreal Tournament, while at the same time, the arcade elements seperate it from games like Rainbow Six, Bad Company, or Medal of Honour. That�s why it�s such a popular series... it stands out from the crowd.

really? coz BC2 feels exactly like CoD to me. i would certainly never ever put it in the same category as the first rainbow sixes...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN didnt activision only fire the 2 senior employees from IW? IW are still making another CoD i thought?

They did, and in the great american tradition they are now both suing each other.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN didnt activision only fire the 2 senior employees from IW? IW are still making another CoD i thought?

I just popped into google and it seems the story has changed from the ones I was reading on the first day the news was released. Ya two guys were fired. And now they�re suing for royalties they claim are owed.

quote:

really? coz BC2 feels exactly like CoD to me. i would certainly never ever put it in the same category as the first rainbow sixes...

I�m not aware of perks that allow you to jump from the tallest buildings in the map without taking damage, lunging 30 feet through the air to stab a guy in the blink of eye with the click of a button, and probably most importantly... Killstreaks.

Also, you can blow buildings apart and knock down trees and stuff. The game is less twitch-based, and focused more on tactical play and teamwork, which leads to a slower-pace (and in my opinion slower pace and longer-distance fights = more realism). The maps are larger. And there�s vehicles.

Now, there�s still health regen and kill-cams, but it�s definitely a more realistic shooter than MW2. And that�s all I was getting at in my post. I didn�t mean to say it was comparable to Rainbow Six, because R6 is so realistic that it�s not fun in any way shape or form, and BC most definitely is.

oh, ive only really ever played singleplayer CoD or BC. and yeah, ive always thought the perk system in MW to be really gay.

i loved all the early tom clancy games. i wish they'd make a new, proper ghost recon

Fuck you Activision. This is yet another example of how you ruin good games.

activision made rome total war. <3

This thread is now about Boba Fett playing the Kokiri Forest song on the street.

Have any idea how many Microsoft points for the new maps ?

As realism increases, fun decreases.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh, ive only really ever played singleplayer CoD or BC. and yeah, ive always thought the perk system in MW to be really gay. i loved all the early tom clancy games. i wish they'd make a new, proper ghost recon

Ah that makes sense. When playing FPS, and thus when giving my opinion of them, I speak strictly from a multi-player standpoint. After Duke Nukem 3D, I�ve never played a single-player campaign on an FPS, save for a few missions in Goldeneye to get cheats for multiplayer.

Most of the perks only served to make every gun exactly the same, while cherry-picking benefits you enjoy the most. Where benefits used to be built into the equipment you decided to use, MW removed most equipment benefits and allowed you to choose whatever you want. Pffffft.

Personally, I�m a fan of arcade-style, low-health shooters. And since they�re so uncommon, I�m stuck with the MW series for now.

quote:

Originally posted by DancingMonkey As realism increases, fun decreases.

This is true, but only due to developers not going the extra mile to bring the fun factor back.

quote:

Originally posted by Spam Ah that makes sense. When playing FPS, and thus when giving my opinion of them, I speak strictly from a multi-player standpoint. After Duke Nukem 3D, I�ve never played a single-player campaign on an FPS, save for a few missions in Goldeneye to get cheats for multiplayer. Most of the perks only served to make every gun exactly the same, while cherry-picking benefits you enjoy the most. Where benefits used to be built into the equipment you decided to use, MW removed most equipment benefits and allowed you to choose whatever you want. Pffffft. Personally, I�m a fan of arcade-style, low-health shooters. And since they�re so uncommon, I�m stuck with the MW series for now.

Ive only ever played shooters over LAN, with the exception of quake 3. But playing over a 56k back in the day sucked major arse I can tell you! im much more a fan of 1v1 MP than teamplay. I don�t play well with others

COD fails miserably at trying to be realistic (which they do to a degree). a police shield can block an entire clip of barrett .50 cal bullets, YA O FUCKING K

that alone makes me want to throw my keyboard at the monitor

quote:

Originally posted by DancingMonkey As realism increases, fun decreases.

Why? Swat4 was pretty realistic And fun (maybe not after getting shot when youre about to finish a 20 minutes mission).

quote:

Originally posted by Viber Why? Swat4 was pretty realistic And fun (maybe not after getting shot when youre about to finish a 20 minutes mission).

that game was fun just because you could abuse the hostages

quote:

Originally posted by jupiterone COD fails miserably at trying to be realistic (which they do to a degree). a police shield can block an entire clip of barrett .50 cal bullets, YA O FUCKING K that alone makes me want to throw my keyboard at the monitor

That�s because COD (at least MW and on) is an arcade shooter. It�s not meant to be realistic, it�s meant to be fun, and easily picked up by newbs and skilled players alike.

quote:

Originally posted by Fledz Fuck you Activision. This is yet another example of how you ruin good games.

wasn't everyone bitching about how MW2 wasn't that good for some reason(s)?

the next CoD is being handled by treyarch, the guys who did CoD3, among others. http://pc.ign.com/articles/107/1078877p1.html

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue wasn't everyone bitching about how MW2 wasn't that good for some reason(s)? the next CoD is being handled by treyarch, the guys who did CoD3, among others. http://pc.ign.com/articles/107/1078877p1.html

Ya, MW2 is a piece of shit due to countless glitches and a horrible, HORRIBLE, match-making system. Treyarch isn't exactly a knight in shining armour in this case though. They DID give us that WaW piece of shit.

COD4 was a lucky shot in the dark.

quote:

Originally posted by DancingMonkey As realism increases, fun decreases.

Halo 3 :3

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.