"A series can lose its luster if gamers feel like subsequent installments aren?t offering substantial improvements. Activision learned this with Tony Hawk and Guitar Hero, two series that saw huge success followed by a drastic downfall. Those franchises caused their own undoing by failing to offer new experiences"
Uh... The Tony Hawk games went downhill because they changed the way that the controls handle from THPS1, and because they started introducing stupid new things such as the skateboard controller...
which is completely AGAINST his point he was trying to make, that activision didn't try and change the series.
Guitar hero was again because they tried to change the game in the wrong ways, for example they made the game harder by adding random notes when you're playing the guitar, which don't make sense- so you end up playing the notes for different instruments on the guitar such as parts with keyboard solos end up being guitar solos.
" each and every entry has at least made meaningful changes and tweaks to the tried-and-true formula."
I think that the whole "this game is the same every time" argument appeared when MW3 came out, because from what i recall it basically was basically the same as MW2, right down to the file name still being called MW2 at release.
"Let?s zero in on one particular mechanic in the series: killstreak rewards. These were introduced in the first Modern Warfare and allowed you to call in UAVs, airstrikes, and helicopters. Cut to Modern Warfare 2, and the entire system is completely different."
While this is kind of true, it's basically jumping from CoD 4 to CoD 6. Of course there's going to be at least one change in the space of 2 games. And it wasn't really TOO different, just making the kill reward customisable.
"Go ahead and accuse Guitar Hero, Madden, and Dynasty Warriors for becoming stagnant, but not Call of Duty. Each entry has its own distinct feel and features, which is admirable considering the franchise would continue to sell just fine (for a while, at least) even if it didn?t evolve the way it has."
I'm pretty sure that CoD would still sell millions of copies even if it became a dancing-farming-cooking-puzzle simulator, simply because it has the CoD name on it and the sheep- i mean people, will still buy it.
And each installment has only changed small things, such as having different weapons or slightly different features.
" In fact, this kid exists by the thousands, and he's the reason that most adult gamers I know play with every other nonparty player muted. However, with millions upon millions of Call of Duty fans, these kids are clearly not the only ones that make up the series? crowd."
I think that he's underestimating just how many kids play CoD. I'm confident that MOST 10-15 year olds right now will probably know what you're talking about when you say COD. Even if they don't play it too often, they'll have probably played it at least once before. Most teenage girls know about it, possibly even more than WoW now.
"Think about what you're getting for your $60 with a Call of Duty game. You get an intense and digestible single-player campaign. Depending on which entry you?re buying, you could team up with a buddy or three to knock out Spec Ops missions or take down hordes of zombies. Most importantly, you have one of the deepest and most replayable multiplayer components of any game on the market. "
Well..
To start with, I've played far better FREE FPS's. War Rock, a game made in 2004/5 (it was korean only in 2004 but became international around 2005/6), for example. It was completely free to download ever since 2006. I've played it for around 800-900 hours and it's possibly the game that i've spent the most hours on.
It had drivable vehicles ever since it came out. Quite a lot of weapons. Many maps.
America's army is another game i spent a LOT of time on (about 150-200 hours). That too had vehicles at one point (for some reason the new version that came out about 2008 or 2009 was about 10 times worse than the version i'm talking about and made everything that was good about the game now terrible, but still). It also had many maps, and 3 or 4 AI maps, as well as a map editor at one point.
All 100% free.
Furthermore, a "intense and digestible campaign".
I think there's probably less than 50% (being generous) of people who actually buy CoD who will actually even start up the campaign, much less bother to finish it. It's terrible.
Don't think i really need to say more here.
as for the "zombies", you could replace the zombies in CoD with giant pieces of toast and it would still play more or less the same.
