Black ops 2 Some kind of Future war game.

[the dark side]

Personally, i dont really care for setting, if the storyline and plot are great, it can be set when it wants to be set, i dont care if its the Trenches of World War One, or the Starship Enterprise (USS Enterprise NCC1701-E to be exact...), if the story and plot are good and the gameplay is awesome, then the developers can set a game where it wants. to be hounest, i rather like future settings as it often allows the developers to use some imagination, make up there own guns, not just use the usual generic Schmeisser Machinen Pistole Modelle 1940 mk1's or Izhmasch JSC Avtomat Kalashinkova Model 1947 Automatic Rifles (depends on the era).

however, if the story is a bad one, and it ALWAYS is with Call of Duty, (just an excuse to kill loads of foreign soldiers for daring to "step up" against the USA "Dawg") and the gameplay is bad, then its a bad game, period, no matter what time period the game may be set. i dont even need to play them to see how bad the plot and storyline are, a quick youtube of the cutscenes shows they are chronically underwritten and offensively outdated and sterotyped.

a good game is made by good story and plot, unique art direction, and most importatly, good gameplay, time period doesnt factor.

i will agree with one thing though, all the electronic gizmos and doo-dads of todays battlefeilds do make an already dumbed down game even easier, to the point its not even worth playing. come, on, Health Regen, Cover, Controll Hints, 2 gun limit? they couldnt make it any more pathetic if they tried! why the magazines give it such good reviews i dont know, id be loath to give it more than a ZERO.

[Zaffre]

No offense OP, but the more you incessantly put Call of Duty down, the more I begin to think you aren't much better then the "CoD fanboys" as they're commonly referred to.

Though I do wholeheartedly believe that Call of Duty has too much hype.

[the dark side]

naah, you can only be as bad a cod fanboy if you are one. why? because they are ruining the games industry! these constant COD clones are dragging it to the brink of collapse. it needs to to collapse, yes, but its a shame that a lot of developers who would probably have made a Proper shooter were it not for publishers ORDERING them to use COD mechanics,(trust me, this happens a lot, im in contact with a few devs, and they just cant make the games they want to make, and need to make in order to survive the inevitable games crash, anymore because the publishers marketing board has done a "profit analysis" that says "medpacks are uncool" or some such poppysticks and cockyfiddle!) are going to loose there jobs because of the industries blind following of the ever dwindling numbers of cod-fanboys, and they are dwindling, in the UK, MW2 sold 4 million units, black ops 1 sold 3.5, Mw3 has so far failed to clear 1.25 million sales in the UK, thats a serious drop, also, look at the recent cod clones like syndicate, reloaded, MOh 2010, Human revolution, Duke Forever. they have all FLOPPED. and yet the publishers still insist on clonign COD despite the fact there cod clones have sold LESS than more traditional games like Serious Sam III, Hard Reset, Etc. i dont know if they are stupid, blind, or are just doing market research on the wrong demographic, but either way, blindly cloning COD is going to kill them, and the industry, because, when even COD is Flopping, then the clones stand no chance. the modern shooter has been Done to death., time to go back to the old mechanics! the public have spoken with sales fiqures!

(ps, thanks zaffre!)

[Bridge]

Our clashing opinions of Deus Ex: HR aside, the game was definitely not a flop. 2.18 million copies times $40 (pretty fair average I think) = $87.2m which ain't nothing to sneeze in. I guarantee the game did not cost that much and even if the profit were as low as 1% of the budget it still wouldn't be a flop. Most people would consider it quite successful, actually.

[failedALIAS]

Our clashing opinions of Deus Ex: HR aside, the game was definitely not a flop. 2.18 million copies times $40 (pretty fair average I think) = $87.2m which ain't nothing to sneeze in. I guarantee the game did not cost that much and even if the profit were as low as 1% of the budget it still wouldn't be a flop. Most people would consider it quite successful, actually.

Know what is also successful? Alien VS Predator 1 & 2, so consider that we're not talking about it's sale statistic.

[the dark side]

not shooting you down here, but, as someone who is in contact with devs, i can tell you, officially, that 2.8 million is a sales flop from a business point of view. Human Revolution, as that is the example we are discussing, had a global sales target of 6 million units and was budgeted for such, no, the game wouldn't cost over 80 million to make, the avarage AAA title only comes to about 6 or 7 million to make, but then youve got to pay companies to distribute it to store, digital download servers to host the digital donwload version, youve got to pay stores to stock the game, you've got to pay sony and microsoft to certify the game for there consoles, you have to pay them extra on top of that as well to make them host the DLC, you've got to pay for advertisng slots on radio and tv, you have to pay for magazine advertising, you have to pay companies for all the liscenced merchandise like apparell, you have to pay a writer for the noveliseation, etc, all that can Easilly come to well OVER 150 Million Dollars!.

Human Revolution, like all the other games i mentioned, completly failed to meet it even its regional sales targets, to the marketing division of any publisher, any game that falls short of its sales targets, even by ONE sale, is a "marketing Flop". they want to know why it failed to meet the targets they forcasted, because by failing to meet targets, they lost money!, and if they dont get a satisfactory answer, then the developer gets shut and the IP gets axed because they lost money on it because they budgeted for 6 million X $40 to cover all the logistics, advertising, merchandising and console porting costs, not 2.8 million X $40., in the games business, Publishers expect 2.8 Million from REGIONAL sales alone, ie, just the UK or just the United States, not overall global sales.

.

[Kreekakon]

^On a completely off topic note, dark side, that is probably one of the most convincing posts I've ever seen you make, assuming all the statistics are correct of course. If you want it to seem even more legit, I'd suggest you brush up on your minor grammar error (Capitalization, and what not), and it'll make your post seem all the more intelligent/convincing.

[johnbox]

I personally don't care about that, because I won't buy this game. This game, and all parts after MW1 are totally shit. Why?
EDIT: The first 4 points are not against the game, because it isn't the developers fault. It's just against tghe community of CoD.

1. You don't need skill on this game. It's just a "who can lay down faster"-gameplay.
2. 75% of the player are 10 year-old children, which scream into the voice-channel, and celebrate their 0,75K/D.
3. 5% of the player are hacker, which is really annoying if you do a serious game
4. And point number 3 causes, that even if you just get a few bigger killstreaks, you're a hacker. Because those 10 year-old just can't lose.
5. There we go, Killstreaks. Even if you have a good game, and you earn an osprey, 18 kills in a row, some noobs are using their 4-kill support killstreak (you can die as often as you want) and destroy it. That's simply stupid.
6. Match-making-system. Srsly, who invented this shit. Sometimes, it takes a few minutes, to find a game, then you connect, and after 1 minute, you "lost connection" and get back to the main menu. When you're finally in the game, it can easily happen, that after 5 minutes, a black screen appears and the whole game crashes. You lost all your scores and points, and this can happen 3 times in a row.

That's why I don't care anymore about CoD.

In the shooter-genre, I prefer Battlefield (Bfbc2) and Counter-Strike 1.6. Why?

1. You need skill and teamwork to win a match. (especially in CS)
2. Most of the players are older, and don't hack or flame.
3. You have no match-making-system
4. You can fly aircrafts, boats, and cars ON YOUR OWN. And there are no fuckin killstreaks, which automatically shoot you down, you have to AIM.
5. Weapons are much more balanced, and they don't have those stupid perks and deathstreaks, like dead mans hand.
6. A dead is a tactical problem, and not just stop playing for 0,5 seconds.
   

Sorry if I hurt any feelings of CoD-fanboys, but this game, or again, more the COMMUNITY, is trash.

[Kreekakon]

Ok, I don't really like Call of Duty much either, but I'll have to slap you for some of your thoughts. I don't entirely disagree with your post though, so if anything I don't quote means I probably agree to some extent, or have nothing to say on the matter.

This game, and all parts after MW1 are totally shit.

This is mostly personal opinion, so I can let you go with that, but I personally thought Black Ops was actually fresh, and interesting enough for me. Plus, the plot was intriguing for COD standards (Perhaps even normal video game standards), so that's definitively a plus. So, Black Ops at least, in my book is definitely not shit.

You don't need skill on this game. It's just a "who can lay down faster"-gameplay.

Oh yes, you need some degree of skill. I know this just from playing COD's free weekends. Running in with horrible aim will not get you anywhere. It doesn't matter how fast you lie down.

1. 75% of the player are 10 year-old children, which scream into the voice-channel, and celebrate their 0,75K/D.
2. 5% of the player are hacker, which is really annoying if you do a serious game
3. And
   point number 3 causes, that even if you just get a few bigger
   killstreaks, you're a hacker. Because those 10 year-old just can't lose.

Even thought this may very well be the case, you DO NOT take in consideration a game's community when objectively judging a game. It's not as if the developers invited 10 year olds, and hackers to play the game by giving them exclusive discounts. Games, whether good or bad, will attract all sorts of audiences, and this does not at all reflect how good a game is.

Most of the players are older, and don't hack or flame.

Same problem I mentioned before.

A dead is a tactical problem, and not just stop playing for 0,5 seconds.

I don't see any problem with this aspect as it's very commonly tossed around. It's either this (Short respawns), or long respawns. Depending on the game, they can use whatever suits the game. I can't see how you think this attributes to the gameplay significantly.

[the dark side]

@Kreekaron. I will openly admit that spelling and grammar are not my strong suits. its why, when i do story writing, i tend to fire up dragontype. Its just, well, on a forum, i prefer to use the keyboard, sure, it leads to spelling, capitaliseation and grammer going out of the window at 100 miles per hour, but, at the end of the day, i cannot improve my typing unless i try.

@ johnbox. mutiplayer isnt the only issue with COD, although all those issues, especially all the screaming trolls, are why i cannot play online multiplayer , in any game, be it Serious Sam Or Forza Motorsport, without having, and i am Not joking here, a nervous breakdown, so i stick purely to a games campain, the single player is even worse.

As for Battlefeild, especially BC2 and BF3, i am sorry if this comes across as seriously Ar**y, but, in terms of the Single Player campaign, wich is all i am interested in, what is the actual difference between the last 2 or 3 battlefeild games and any "modern warfare" series Call of Duty?

from what i have seen of them, the similarities are,.

1. They are both made primarily for the Xbox 360 Console so they have extremly outdated technology runing them, meaning poor graphics with no Anti Aliansing, muted sounds, and frequent game breaking glitches.

2. they both use casual gameplay elements, such as Regenerating Health, 2 Weapon Limit, Squads (wich mean you dont even have to shoot the enemy yourself), the dreaded "Press X to not Die" (thanks Yahtzee!) Quick Time Event etc.

3. they both constantly "hold your hand" with waypoints, corridor level design, Constant "PRESS (THIS) TO" controll hints.

4. they both have short(less than 2 hours), badly written stories that consist of Angry muscly American special forces types who swear a lot, needlessly, fighting off a Russian backed WMD empowered attack on the United States.

5. they both have completley incorrect reload animatics, especially on Handguns. (this does NOT apply to BC2, that got most of its animatics right from what i can see on yourtube, although, for soem reason, the player isnt "racking" (working the bolt) the assault rifles)

6. they both have NON optional Dynamic Scaling (making them unplayable for users who have "focal distraction issues")

7. they both use the "one eye open" Aim Down Sights as used by the US army wich in a real battle will get you killed faster than a rat in a brewery, instead of the 2 eyes open british version wich increases survivability and gives a visual effect not unlike the old "down the side" zoom aim (although i cannot serve in the army personally, bad hip, mentally screwed, amongst other issues, but my father did serve and has informed me of how Unrealistic the modern "realistic" shooter often is, even the 2 guin limit is wrong, as, if they use the slings, a soldier can carry over 4 weapons, with ammo, as it still comes below the 300 LBS a Soldier is trained to carry!)

8, they both focus on multiplayer to the detriment of the lifespan for the single player experience

9, they both, (BF3 only in battlefeilds case.) use... (shudders) Dubstep...

. so i am afraid i must ask, what is the Difference, in "Single Player" mode, Between the last 3 battlefeilds and Call of Duty, as all i see in battlefeild videos, i am sad to say, is a "Call of Duty clone"? meaning all it is, to me, is Call of Duty in an EA Box. so its as bad For the games industry as Call Of Duty. its still going to drag it into the mud when it collpases under the weight of too many inept "modern shooters" a genre wich has been done to death and is rapidly loosing popularity.