Well i bet they would make more money if they didnt think about it and thought about the game more, dont you agreeSyphous said:
Decline of COD
- Thread starter oG x TEDDY
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Considering how well Modern Warfare has sold by basically sticking to what they know to be profitable, compared to other more (for better or worse) innovative games, that may sadly not be true.oG x TEDDY said:
Why hello, only other person in the universe who realizes Treyarch =/= Infinity ward, so nice to meet you. =)Stalk3rchief said:
If activision made Treyarch use some other name for their games and reserved the CoD line specifically for the IW games it would probably be one of the greatest series ever. However Acti likes money so they let Treyarch make games using the CoD moniker to ensure it sells. Shortens the development cycle, two studios, twice as many games.... not rocket science.
All the Treyarch games were down notes. Seems like everytime the next IW game is due to launch everyone brings up the flaws in the Treyarch title before it >.>
You'd think that with all these discussions of how the game was declining folks would at least mention the two studios and differentiate, but haters gonna hate.
OT: The no less than 80 threads per day about CoD tell me its probably not in decline.... And personally I think MW3 will be a world beater, in sales and quality.
wow, so if you make games that are played the same way over and over, gradually the more bore-able people get bored and wander off, until you are down to the smallest possible market of hardcore l33ts and OCD addicts?
Quick, someone tell the MMO makers before they go with that stupid Skinner-box-leveling-treadmill and McRaids combo they've been thinking about.
Quick, someone tell the MMO makers before they go with that stupid Skinner-box-leveling-treadmill and McRaids combo they've been thinking about.
It's not declining, it's stagnating. The formula has barely changed [but Blops was a step in the right direction] and the style and feel is, and I believe will say the same for a while yet. As long as Cod games sell big they will not change. Sure you will get new gear, weapons [possibly, still get m bloody 16s].
Sure cods fun, I enjoy it, but for it's own sake I will not be buying Mw3 on release date. I want the games to improve, and the only way that will happen is if their sales get hurt.
Sure cods fun, I enjoy it, but for it's own sake I will not be buying Mw3 on release date. I want the games to improve, and the only way that will happen is if their sales get hurt.
After 4 barring WaW, they took the setting that was unique and made bland and uninteresting by setting all big name fps's that used to be WW2 shooters in this new time period
I blame all the overfishing. We need to ease up, and allow schools to repopulate and for fish farms to rejuvenate the world's stocks.
... Oh, THAT cod. Whoops.
I've played very little CoD, so I'll throw that out there first. I've played Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2. The former was interesting, though it felt... loose? The controls didn't seem to respond as well as I'd expect (admittedly, the only FPSs I'd played till then were twitch shooters, with the accuracy ramped up to caffeine-junkie levels, so that may just be me). Modern Warfare 2 looked, and felt, almost EXACTLY the same. The only difference, as far as I can remember, was the fact that I played the former on the PC and the latter on the PS3. Apart from that, it looked the same and played the same. As OP said, it's not any less fun, but it's like it's exactly the same game (multiplayer-wise, anyway).
Just looking at the fact that they're releasing Modern Warfare 3 makes me wonder just how much innovation is being put into the series, and guessing not that much. After all, Modern Warfare 2 and CoDBlOps (wow, camelcasing!) sold extraordinarily well, so they're probably thinking that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. When they stop selling well, they'll try innovating again. When THAT'LL be is anyone's guess.
... Oh, THAT cod. Whoops.
I've played very little CoD, so I'll throw that out there first. I've played Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2. The former was interesting, though it felt... loose? The controls didn't seem to respond as well as I'd expect (admittedly, the only FPSs I'd played till then were twitch shooters, with the accuracy ramped up to caffeine-junkie levels, so that may just be me). Modern Warfare 2 looked, and felt, almost EXACTLY the same. The only difference, as far as I can remember, was the fact that I played the former on the PC and the latter on the PS3. Apart from that, it looked the same and played the same. As OP said, it's not any less fun, but it's like it's exactly the same game (multiplayer-wise, anyway).
Just looking at the fact that they're releasing Modern Warfare 3 makes me wonder just how much innovation is being put into the series, and guessing not that much. After all, Modern Warfare 2 and CoDBlOps (wow, camelcasing!) sold extraordinarily well, so they're probably thinking that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. When they stop selling well, they'll try innovating again. When THAT'LL be is anyone's guess.
this makes people look dumb because they could not see that and bought the game anyway, i said that thinking that their would be some people who could distinguish if a game is being repeated or if the developers are actually tryingThe Bucket said:
I'd be happy if MW3's multiplayer was just COD4 remade with no martyrdom and FragX3, and some new maps and pretty graphics.
It's adding too much crazy shit in that seems to be ruining it.... a good formula stays fun forever (look how many people still play Counter Strike)
It's adding too much crazy shit in that seems to be ruining it.... a good formula stays fun forever (look how many people still play Counter Strike)
Call of Duty: United Offensive had balanced multiplayer featuring a variety of weapons and challenging game modes, maps that were detailed yet still easy to navigate, and vehicles that added to the experience rather than becoming a universal pain in the ass.oG x TEDDY said:
Arguably, every single Call of Duty game starting with CoD2 was a step backward.
The way it is with the sales is that the retards who couldnt tell a bad game from a good one have become cultivated fanboys. Whenever activision unleashes a new CoD upon the world they make sure its advertised to everyone and thier grandma. So fanboys filter, if not rush, to buy the new one based on what they liked from the previous game.
The only thing that can collapse that cycle is a game so sub par it would make someone cry regrets.
With CoD it might not happen with MW3 but i know itll happen eventually.
Ive tried 3 times to write something decent here without outright slagging off CoD. I think i failed again though.
The only thing that can collapse that cycle is a game so sub par it would make someone cry regrets.
With CoD it might not happen with MW3 but i know itll happen eventually.
Ive tried 3 times to write something decent here without outright slagging off CoD. I think i failed again though.
Counterstrike 1.6. didn't evolve at all and I still enjoy it from time to time.
Good games don't need to change to stay fun. Good games offer their players to do new things to keep the game interesting.
That said, I don't actually play CoD, but it still seems to be really successful. And probably for a reason.
Good games don't need to change to stay fun. Good games offer their players to do new things to keep the game interesting.
That said, I don't actually play CoD, but it still seems to be really successful. And probably for a reason.
I think that Call Of Duty started to decline after their best game, Call Of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and this is the ACTUAL name for it, not Modern Warfare.
The only good parts about Cod now are the spec ops and the story.
The only good parts about Cod now are the spec ops and the story.