So what do you guys think? Too futuristic in my opinion. I hope I can resist buying it as we all know how hard that is with COD. But hey the graphics are a bit better........ a bit.
I'm actually interested in a Call of Duty game for the first time in a long time.
There is hardly anyone exploring the "near future" style that we're seeing here, especially not with vehicles and the like. You give me a level where I get to drive a small mech with miniguns?
You've successfully gotten my interest Treyarch. Well played.
Im actually a bit neutral about this. True, most of the CODs have sucked to me. But I like sci fi. Im wary to waste my money on this though. I did that with Black Ops 1 and Im afraid to make the same mistake.
Meh the mech's and flyers look like something straight out of the command and conquer tiberium series. Personally I would like to see this series of games end.
Kanluwen wrote:I'm actually interested in a Call of Duty game for the first time in a long time.
There is hardly anyone exploring the "near future" style that we're seeing here, especially not with vehicles and the like. You give me a level where I get to drive a small mech with miniguns?
You've successfully gotten my interest Treyarch. Well played.
QFT.
Albiet, I am in no way, nor do I consider myself, a Call of Duty fan, I have found the games that have been created by Treyarch have been simply more innovative, imaginative and simply just "more fun" in relation to the Infinity Ward alternatives. Think about it. While, Infinity Ward tends to stick with the generic "shooter" formula (lets be honest, the first Modern Warfare was the only good thing to come out of the series), Treyarch, upon multiple instances, has provided an innovative and/or imaginative aspect to it's products; with World at War you had the, IMO, excellent story, increase of "realistic" gore and infamous zombie modes, Black Ops you had the further excellent story, "code breaking" and further additions to zombie mode and Black Ops 2 appears to further up the metaphorical ante by introducing a futuristic setting, weapons and plot which, no doubt, will be phenomenal. Even the ill-recieved Call of Duty 3, IMO, was innovative, as the campaign introduced the inclusion of two forces which aren't normally presented within video games regarding WWII: of course I mean the Canadian and Polish campaigns.
All in all, I'm quite distraught that many people give Treyarch a bad reputation despite having made countless innovations which have no doubt occupied many hours of your lives.
In fact, personally, I can't wait until this game comes out, so I can disintegrate some zombie-alien hybrids with my walking mini-gun mech.
And guys come on. Hearing James C. Burns/Frank Woods in the trailer was awesome. No?
Kanluwen wrote:I'm actually interested in a Call of Duty game for the first time in a long time.
There is hardly anyone exploring the "near future" style that we're seeing here, especially not with vehicles and the like. You give me a level where I get to drive a small mech with miniguns?
You've successfully gotten my interest Treyarch. Well played.
QFT.
Albiet, I am in no way, nor do I consider myself, a Call of Duty fan, I have found the games that have been created by Treyarch have been simply more innovative, imaginative and simply just "more fun" in relation to the Infinity Ward alternatives. Think about it. While, Infinity Ward tends to stick with the generic "shooter" formula (lets be honest, the first Modern Warfare was the only good thing to come out of the series), Treyarch, upon multiple instances, has provided an innovative and/or imaginative aspect to it's products; with World at War you had the, IMO, excellent story, increase of "realistic" gore and infamous zombie modes, Black Ops you had the further excellent story, "code breaking" and further additions to zombie mode and Black Ops 2 appears to further up the metaphorical ante by introducing a futuristic setting, weapons and plot which, no doubt, will be phenomenal. Even the ill-recieved Call of Duty 3, IMO, was innovative, as the campaign introduced the inclusion of two forces which aren't normally presented within video games regarding WWII: of course I mean the Canadian and Polish campaigns.
All in all, I'm quite distraught that many people give Treyarch a bad reputation despite having made countless innovations which have no doubt occupied many hours of your lives.
In fact, personally, I can't wait until this game comes out, so I can disintegrate some zombie-alien hybrids with my walking mini-gun mech.
And guys come on. Hearing James C. Burns/Frank Woods in the trailer was awesome. No?
I like Treyarch..... The games they made were very good. I just dont like the look of this one. I am playing the first Black Ops campaign right now and am enjoying the story very much.
Kanluwen wrote:I'm actually interested in a Call of Duty game for the first time in a long time.
There is hardly anyone exploring the "near future" style that we're seeing here, especially not with vehicles and the like. You give me a level where I get to drive a small mech with miniguns?
You've successfully gotten my interest Treyarch. Well played.
QFT.
Albiet, I am in no way, nor do I consider myself, a Call of Duty fan, I have found the games that have been created by Treyarch have been simply more innovative, imaginative and simply just "more fun" in relation to the Infinity Ward alternatives. Think about it. While, Infinity Ward tends to stick with the generic "shooter" formula (lets be honest, the first Modern Warfare was the only good thing to come out of the series), Treyarch, upon multiple instances, has provided an innovative and/or imaginative aspect to it's products; with World at War you had the, IMO, excellent story, increase of "realistic" gore and infamous zombie modes, Black Ops you had the further excellent story, "code breaking" and further additions to zombie mode and Black Ops 2 appears to further up the metaphorical ante by introducing a futuristic setting, weapons and plot which, no doubt, will be phenomenal. Even the ill-recieved Call of Duty 3, IMO, was innovative, as the campaign introduced the inclusion of two forces which aren't normally presented within video games regarding WWII: of course I mean the Canadian and Polish campaigns.
All in all, I'm quite distraught that many people give Treyarch a bad reputation despite having made countless innovations which have no doubt occupied many hours of your lives.
In fact, personally, I can't wait until this game comes out, so I can disintegrate some zombie-alien hybrids with my walking mini-gun mech.
And guys come on. Hearing James C. Burns/Frank Woods in the trailer was awesome. No?
I like Treyarch..... The games they made were very good. I just dont like the look of this one. I am playing the first Black Ops campaign right now and am enjoying the story very much.
Same here, I love the Treyarch COD's But.. somethings going against the grain on this one
Skeptical to say the least, much like Black Ops which oddly enough I really enjoyed.
Every CoD is hit or miss with me on the MP aspect as thats where the focus is.
CoD4 - Miss, I sucked big style and helicopters didn't help.
MW2 - Pretty awesome I thought. I actually done well at sniping and occasionally runnin and gunnin.
BLOPs - Loved me some MP, I destroyed in certain games.
MW3 - Mega Miss, A game that caused you to break a controller is not worth playing, and I havnt since.
Seriously, I just watched the reveal trailer on TV. I thought some of the scenes they showed were literally parts Deus Ex.
Those hovercraft are almost identical, the mechs, the color palette in the city.
I mean, I love the setting and idea. I'll probably buy it because I love near-future games like Deus Ex...but this is pretty pathetic that they couldn't even figure out different vehicle designs.
Well the first one gave me a headache between every mission with its epileptic brain hemorrhage inducing lightshow.
But this one... not sure. The trailer doesn't speak to me, or rather it does and the guy sounds way overdramatic in a batman sort of way.
However at least they seem to be innovating, you can say that other games have done the near future before (All the flame war veterans say 2142) but for a call of duty game this is a huge step forward.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:
But this one... not sure. The trailer doesn't speak to me, or rather it does and the guy sounds way overdramatic in a batman sort of way.
One would assume from your sig that you like Batman...
I played CoDMWSAE4.51, or whatever, and it was ok.
Went throught Battlefront 3's campaign, ok.
Now, this? I want this. Treyarch always goes in the opposite direction from Infinity Ward. IW gives us super-ultra seriousness with a side-order of grim, Treyarch hands us a platter of zombie-nazi, flamethrower-shotgun, futuristic-warfare-from-horseback in return.
I'm tired of the ultra-reaslistic, 'everything's brown with a touch of lens flair' games.*
My suggestion for Treyarch's next game? Jet packs. Jet packs for everybody.
Or, hell. Screw it. Let's go to 2251, where we've finally made contact with aliens, and, whadda know, they're hostile? Woooooah! (Seriously, let's make 'To Defend the Earth' into a FPS. I wanna shoot me some Jai.)
*I say, while playing Wargame: European Escalation.
Treyarch has always made the better CODs. They also made some pretty good Spiderman Games. When this comes out I will wait for the real reviews to come out.....Not IGN or Gamespot.
I wonder how much of the game is a first-person shooter, this time, rather than a string of mildly interactive cutscenes? The amount of time I spent just following people around in Black Ops... ugh. At least if gave me time for the nausea of the loading screen cutscenes to die down a bit.
No co-op mode again, so I'm probably going to pass on this one.
Sorry about that, the last CoD worth buying was MW2, (which had the worlds most expensive DLC, "MW3", released at the end of last year) They copied 2142 SOOOOO badly, the design of the mech, transports is so much like 2142 PAC walkers.
remember Camp Gibraltar, Suez Canal, and all those who fought in the winters of 2142
To be honest I think that the franchise reached its zenith in 2005 with CoD 2. Since then it has clearly become little more than a cash cow with minor cosmetic changes and ever decreasing single player game length the only ways to tell them apart.
The CoD treadmill has become emblematic of what is wrong with the gaming industry.
From what I read, they didn't reuse the Blackops name. Mason will be playable in a 80's campaign in south america (With the surviving gang from the first Black Ops) that will parallel the 2025 campaign where you play Mason's son. So it is, in fact, a direct sequel.
I thought MW3 was one of the most disappointing games I have ever played. I loved Black Ops. And the game hates drones. Pre-order for me!
Also, when was the last time we fought the Chinese in a video game? Because this Black Ops is also set in a Cold War.
Melissia wrote:So has the MoH treadmill, the Halo treadmill, and the battlefield treadmill...
Lol I will stay on the Halo treadmill, cause I love them all so much, Halo 4 is either going to be good, or really Bad in my eyes. Battlefield I will BUY the 2143 expansion when they release it for BF3!
I have Halo 2 for PC and they are still a lot of people playing it. Back on topic though. I will give this game a chance as it is a Treyarch game. If it was Infinity Ward....I would immediately diss it.
Melissia wrote:The Halo series has two games in it made for the PC.
Halo has two games ported to the PC.
And Halo 2 was bad if only cause of Windows Live.
And I don't really see why it matters. THe last CoD to be "made for PC" was CoD4. The rest are ports, and bad ones that suck up processing power and ram.
Actually you did. Complaining that a game series stopped releasing on a specific platform is not the same as tossing around accusations of "elitism" like you and BBF.
Hell, you might as well say that people who complain that certain series stopped being released in the US are Japanophobes or some stupid gak if you want to use that demented "logic".
I'm just hoping they'll fix whatever the problem is with multiplayer that makes it a bitch for my wife and I to play online together on separate consoles.
They should just forego the solo part of the game altogether and spend all their time on the MP. Nobody expects, wants or needs a good solo FPS experience when it comes to Call of Duty.
I prefer Blops to MW2/MW3. If they do away with quickscoping again I'll be happy.
Probably going to pass it up. I think Treyarch makes terrible games. Also, about the setting, if it were a halo prequel set way in the past (for the Halo universe), It would be great, but for COD? No thanks.
HONAW wrote:Yeah.....never again with paying 60.00 for COD.
I would pay 60.00 for CoD... cause that is cheaper than what I would have too pay... 500 Rand is the starting price on PC... 600 - 700 Rand if your Xbox or PS3. But I would not buy another CoD after Black Ops.
CoD is dead in my eyes last good CoD was MW2. Best CoD was CoD4.
