Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#6 - iyr ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here and defend COD, because I'm assuming that's the game this post is alluding to.

I'm not sure why COD gets so much flac for "being the same game" sequel after sequel. Many other games have done practically the same thing and no one gave a damn. Crash Bandicoot (when it was still owned by naughty dog), Spyro, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Left 4 Dead, Portal (woo, they added paints, big deal), Ace Combat, Need for Speed, Amnesia (and Penumbra that preceded it), Assassin's Creed, the list goes on.

The game engine is the single most expensive thing to develop in any game, not the art-set, animations or audio. If a game dev can recycle as much of the engine as possible in future releases, you bet their sweet ass they're gonna do it. Adding new mechanics to the engine and improving the engine is expensive enough, much less writing a new one from scratch.
Besides, nobody would like it if they fell in love with a game only to have the sequel behave completely different mechanically because the dev decided to build a new engine.
User avatar #455 to #6 - konradkurze (11/22/2013) [-]
the reason i hate CoD is because of its endless "Murica **** yeah' message of being pro-america gameply....also that one game you play as a brit i think...but still...allied taking on everything not allied and winning....propaganda
User avatar #393 to #6 - failtolawl (11/13/2013) [-]
you know that portal actually has a much more dated source engine than portal 2? Besides that, it's more than just "paint" (which in it's own add so much more to the game), puzzles are extremely hard to make, a generic linear map is not.
#366 to #6 - nonanonnon (11/13/2013) [-]
The familiarity is nice too. Ratchet & Clank gradually evolved the mechanics, but never to such an extent that you felt like you had to learn how to play all over again. We all want some degree of this, like if the X button has always been jump, and suddenly it's Y.
User avatar #362 to #6 - imalwaysright (11/13/2013) [-]
people forget that there is more than just the campaign. COD has a vast multiplayer system. New game modes, and they are trying to introduce competitive to new players each year.
User avatar #359 to #6 - artyomthebadass (11/13/2013) [-]
I am going to say right now that I don't hate COD, I just don't enjoy playing it. I personally don't care too much about graphics, although it seems that textures close up are always really half done. The game play...it has always felt like your characters kind of just glide instead of having actual weight. Now as I said earlier, I don't hate the game, what I do hate is how unbalanced the game play is. A god damn sniper running around like a jack ass killing and out gunning everyone no matter what. Shotgun vs sniper at 5 meters NOPE SNIPER WINS.
So many companies have also shifted their mechanics to be more "COD like" to open up to the market that is the COD sheep.

So, I don't hate it, I don't love it. But they could definitely change more things to make it a new/better experience.
User avatar #353 to #6 - awesomescorpion (11/13/2013) [-]
On L4D, the second game added melee, doubled the map count and added various new specials and weapons. It basically doubled the content. I liked it. Meanwhile, the most notable difference between CoD n and CoD n+1 are the graphics, story specifics and some stats. L4D2 has a quite different gameplay style, much less survival horror and much more FPS horde brawler. I play the different games for different reasons. Can you say the same for different CoD versions? I can't.
User avatar #376 to #353 - swagloon (11/13/2013) [-]
please. L4D2 is just a DLC. All the things you mention as 'new game material' is what anyone else would call DLC.
And calling L4D a survival horror is laughable. Both games have the same feel.

Besides since the argument is on COD apparently; COD has increased "map count and added various new specials and weapons", new multiplayer elements, tried to do more with the story. So yea I can say the same for COD.
User avatar #388 to #376 - awesomescorpion (11/13/2013) [-]
Then we seem to differentiate on our views of the difference between DLC and sequels. I see DLC as being stuff that hangs around the workshop at the moment, and a sequel has a similar but distinguished feel.

I agree that, compared to dedicated survival horror games, the first Left 4 Dead is indeed not a hot contender, but still the difference in feel between both games is substantial enough to be called a sequel. I would not call it a new game (franchise) in the same genre, but it is different enough from the original to be defined as a sequel.

Meanwhile, the differences made between CoD games are, though measurably similar in scale, not differentiated in feel as much as the Left 4 Dead games are. I would make Ghosts an expansion pack, rather than a sequel.

But in the end, the actual difference between different games, sequels, expansion packs, DLC packs, DLC and updates is mostly based on personal views, and as such I do not believe I can convince you, since we differ on a fundamental level. But it was a pleasure sharing opinions on the matter. Please respond if you have anything to add to the discussion, otherwise I will leave this discussion in its current state.

Have a good day.
#340 to #6 - anonymous (11/13/2013) [-]
PROTAL BEST GAME I LVOOE OAVALE EYEAH]
#339 to #6 - anonymous (11/13/2013) [-]
Not that you have a bad arguement, but some of your examples are just bad.

Crash Bandicoot changed drastically between the first 3 games. It wasn't until Wrath of Cortex, the first main series crash game to not be made by Naughty Dog, to be the same game as it's predecessor, Crash Bandicoot 3.

Left 4 Dead had one sequel. One games does not make a pattern. Especially considering that L4D2 was considered the ideal version the devs wanted to make, but couldn't due to time restraints. Which explains why L4D2 came out a year after L4D, but we haven't seen a L4D3.
#316 to #6 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (11/13/2013) [-]
I'd like to defend Valve games by saying the engine they used to develop L4D and Portal was heavily upgraded to meet the requirements of the sequels, and while L4D2 was generally the same formula as far as gameplay went (but, of course, included the concept of the Sacrifice, which is always nice), Portal 2 improved over or expanded from the original in every way imaginable. I've heard it said that Portal 2 is one of the best games of all time and I'd definitely support that statement.

I don't think I can pick your post apart just because I disagree with it, but there is much more to define a game than an engine, and many of the best sequels don't keep the engine the same anyway (e.g. HL1 - HL2). You've got to account for the look and feel of the game, the graphical style (not the specifications), the writing; oh how I adore a well-written game. COD does not aim to change or improve in many of these throughout its sequel crawl. I have always felt that MW1 and MW2 are the best COD games, period, and I don't think Ghosts or anything like that will change my opinion.
User avatar #318 to #316 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (11/13/2013) [-]
PS: I thumbed because you have thought this through and I respect your opinion.
User avatar #314 to #6 - Jakdablak (11/13/2013) [-]
I have to say, I applaud your statement. You made a point without "Hurr Call of Duty totally sucks." You pointed out other great games that have really done the same thing. Hell, I'll even admit, Pokemon, one my favorite series, is guilty of it. So I'd just like to say thanks for making a valid point without straight up insulting Call of Duty.
#313 to #6 - anonymous (11/13/2013) [-]
Halo
User avatar #312 to #6 - garymotherfingoak ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
thank you
User avatar #306 to #6 - reaperoxide ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
Most of those games listed don't have 15 sequels and the paint in portal 2 brought along a whole lot of new puzzles to be solved. Assassins Creed is the only one I would really agree with except for the fact that the last 2 games 3 and 4 have been trying to change not recycle stuff from the old games not to mention the world fo AC has to be researched and then made again from scratch everytime, where as CoD is just boring generic **** .
User avatar #296 to #6 - sirslimyscrotum **User deleted account** (11/13/2013) [-]
Jak and Daxter change its style each time they released a game.
User avatar #295 to #6 - carlosspicywiener ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
Portal 2 had an actual story to it though, as well as a great multiplayer and map editor. I know you're getting tons of comments like this but Portal 2 is far from a forced sequel.
User avatar #280 to #6 - tjflash (11/13/2013) [-]
While I agree with you, you can't really compare the tech of the PS2 to the tech of the PS3. Jak and Daxter looks the same (artwise) because the tech of the PS2 was very limited in comparison. It was hard to redesign things the way we do now. So instead, they relied on original story lines and in depth characters so keep the people happy.
#270 to #6 - anonymous (11/13/2013) [-]
jak and daxter are you kidding? he didn't even talk in the first one I don't have time to give you a list of differences but they changed so much while still keeping the core gameplay that was so great the first time other than that they only had three main games that told a story not however many ******* cods there are excuse any errors I made pressed for time.ifd
#226 to #6 - octaviano (11/13/2013) [-]
Woah, buddy, hold the **** up.
Need for Speed is one hard thing to put there.
Saying that it's "Racing Cars" is like saying CoD, or any modern army-shooter, is "Men with Guns shooting."
Need for Speed had something that always made it special, especially in the middle of the first Era, with Hot-Pursuit adding Cop-mode. High Stakes added a winner-gets-all-duel mode with carreer mode.
Era 2 concentrated on Import-Cars, illegal street racing with more average cars, and a nice storyline along with tuning.
Era 3 concentrated more on Multiplayer, while also aiming back at the exotic-cars direction, going a bit sim-ish too.
Era 4 (Currently) now focuses strongly on Multiplayer, Open-World, Cops&Racers and the likes.

I still didn't see a CoD that only consisted of pistols, or where you have logical-steampunk weapons.
#449 to #226 - anonymous (11/14/2013) [-]
Era 1?
#450 to #449 - octaviano (11/14/2013) [-]
Era 1 started with the first Need for Speed. It contained every game before Underground 1.
It's considered the 'classic' NFS series.
User avatar #223 to #6 - pvtgoblin (11/13/2013) [-]
Finally, someone with reason. Thank you.
#194 to #6 - kolpster (11/13/2013) [-]
I agree, but you are solely defending the campaign, and disregarding the multiplayer and the fanbase.

The fans never buy it for the campaign, or at least none of the ones you meet. Most of them are, pardon my French, ******* little rat-bastard cunt-waffle 12 year-olds, who will defend COD like a holy spirit, and will praise the game forever. This is a reason a lot of people I've met don't like COD, as the fanbase breeds infuriating outsiders.

The multiplayer is the same. You said it yourself on Portal, an extra thing - big whoop. As much as I disagree, as the storyline was fantastic and people wanted more test chambers, so Valve delivered thus not making it generic and the same thing, the point is a good'n. COD's mutiplayer is just slightly different maps with slightly different textures, with Prestige mode the most brown and generic thing, ensuing people will play the exact ******* things almost a dozen times. This is the brown part of Child Online Daycare, not the campaign. I personally liked the series, and, up until the release of MW3, I played all of them an thoroughly enjoyed them.

TL;DR - his point is valid, but COD multiplayer and stereotypical (truthful stereotype) fanbase suck. (but not as hrd as i suked ur mum pusseh! <- Generic COD fan).
User avatar #189 to #6 - milomcrobbie (11/13/2013) [-]
Prime example is Fable 3. That ******* game lmao
User avatar #165 to #6 - irishhappyposter (11/13/2013) [-]
but portal 2 is completely different from portal one in story, setting, music and most mechanics
#156 to #6 - nefarian ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
Those games had completely different campaigns. People don't judge CoD by its singleplayer, but its multiplayer. At that aspect it's the same over and over again.
User avatar #155 to #6 - RevengeNL (11/13/2013) [-]
Penumbra was a trilogy
Portal added co-op
Left 4 dead are you serious? They added tons of stuff and really improved the game
The others I might agree with but you are really exaggerating here
#154 to #6 - rollmania (11/13/2013) [-]
Unreal Engine 3 is a game engine...
Rainbow Six is not Unreal Tournament.
Bioshock is not Batman.
Frost Engine was used in Battlefield and in NFS: Shift.
Same engine =/= Same game
#152 to #6 - anonymous (11/13/2013) [-]
using the same engine doesn't mean you get the same game, check unity or source engine. same engine, but completely different games.

i don't think that people say cod is the same because of the same engine (they should really change that old ass engine tho). most games doesn't use new engines, they use ones that is available, but that does NOT make the game the same.

for example your logic tells us the Half-Life 2, Counter-Strike Source and GO, Portal 1/2, Dota 2, L4D 1/2, and TF2 are the same games because they all use the same engine.
#124 to #6 - jordanish (11/13/2013) [-]
See this is why I love Majora's Mask so much:
It was built off the same engine as Ocarina of Time but added two mechanics that totally changed the game: the 72 hour time limit and the masks (which were in OoT but did **** )
By doing this Nintendo created a brand new game using the old one as a spring board. Plus is was really ******* dark. Like you shouldn't have made this dark (pic related)
User avatar #120 to #6 - nintendolover (11/13/2013) [-]
I agree perfectly. Nintendo has probably been doing it longer than anyone else with their Mario games. To me, it's not always about changing the engine or the core gameplay, but to add and improve somethings that make me want to play through the game.

Personally, I don't think CoD games are bad at its core. I just think they're so insanely overrated. I loved CoD4 and World at War.
User avatar #119 to #6 - xxmemesxx (11/13/2013) [-]
haha le lel lel elelel le
User avatar #106 to #6 - lorkhan (11/13/2013) [-]
I don't actually hate it, its just not my type of game. But with the rest of the world its a Love/Hate relationship.
#90 to #6 - anonymous (11/13/2013) [-]
The difference is that the franchises you mentioned were neither blatant about it or nor did they milk it dry. CoD releases a closely-similar game to the rest of its library every year, whereas the other franchises did this, at most, three or four times. Even then, there were enough apparant dfferences to make them feel fresh. The atmosphere between Crash 1 and Crash 3 were worlds apart, even if the gameplay wasn't. It felt new, at least, and even then, it began to mix things up afterwards before the franchise grew too stale.
Therein lies the reason CoD gets this flak and other franchises don't.
User avatar #85 to #6 - northleech ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
You didn't even mention Pokémon. I love Pokémon, but It's really just the same game with new pokémon and a new setting every time.
#83 to #6 - anonymous (11/13/2013) [-]
Rachet and clank had a good storyline in each of the original sequals
#77 to #6 - anonymous (11/13/2013) [-]
hey homo boy,
in crash 3 you got all those new abilities like bazooka for example.
and new level designs. For example riding a motorbike was damn awesome mang.
User avatar #76 to #6 - staticwolf (11/13/2013) [-]
Because, all those games you listed, add STORY. CoD's story is akin to thirty tonnes of landfill being put into a sewer and watching the mess it creates.
User avatar #113 to #76 - admiralen (11/13/2013) [-]
if you play cod for story youre an idiot and get what you deserve, theyre multiplayer games
User avatar #324 to #113 - staticwolf (11/13/2013) [-]
Congratulations then, you have recognised OP's point!

Nothing changes, there's no reason to buy the sequels. Stop it.
User avatar #326 to #324 - admiralen (11/13/2013) [-]
except the multiplayer is still great, even with all the problem people keep mentioning the multiplayer is a blast, and mw2 and black ops 2 are awesome multiplayer games
User avatar #436 to #326 - staticwolf (11/13/2013) [-]
So why do you need to go to the next in the series?
User avatar #437 to #436 - admiralen (11/13/2013) [-]
cause they evolve, have new weapons and the small changes matter, for one i find mw2 to be LEAGUES better than mw1
#63 to #6 - ragingheterosexual (11/13/2013) [-]
I usually buy cod every year and I have to admit that while Treyarch's games are getting better with each sequel, Infinity Wards games have been getting worse. Obviously this is just my opinion but I recently bought Ghosts and I think it is probably the worst Cod game to date.

The campaign took me about 4 hours to beat on the hardest difficulty and it was just too recycled. I know that with every campaign you are going to have a lot of similarities because they are using the same game engine, just modified, but a lot of it seemed forced just because maybe they spent the time to add it in and didn't want it to go to waste on just one mission. like the propulsion design they used in space and underwater a few times through out ghosts I do realize cod games are mostly focused on multiplayer but dammit I usually enjoy the campaign, especially the first blops
User avatar #86 to #63 - flemsdfer (11/13/2013) [-]
I actually spent the most time on the Ghosts campaign compared to the others. It took the longest for me, playing on "Hardened". I really did like the variety of it space, underwater, sides of buildings, jungles it was pretty cool, the multiplayer was about what anyone would expect, and the aliens mode was pretty neat. I'm not a huge call of duty fan, and haven't ever bought one, but renting it was pretty fun. Though the ending I thought was kinda forced You shoot Rorke with a space cannon, shoot him with a 44. in the chest, drown him, then bombarde the area with more space cannon **** ... and he's alive and manages to beat you in combat and steal you with your brother right there!? ********
User avatar #62 to #6 - alterednicolas (11/13/2013) [-]
I don't think Need For Speed games have been the same every year.
User avatar #99 to #62 - Silver Quantum (11/13/2013) [-]
they have all been pretty much **** regardless. last good nfs that was fun was most wanted. the rest have either been a recycled version of most wanted or failed sim/arcade hybrids. and the last ones made by criterion weren't any better either. and this is coming from a moderator on a nfs fan site that once was one of the most popular nfs sites. now there's practically 0 activity
User avatar #161 to #99 - alterednicolas (11/13/2013) [-]
Well i think they are great especially the ones made by Criterion games, since the later NFS games that were made by Black box (Undercover, Pro Street, The Run) were complete **** . But Hot Pursuit 2010 was a great game since Hot Pursuit for the PS2 was the first NFS game i had played it was nice to see that they went back to the roots. And the new Rivals seems to follow Hot Pursuits footsteps which i like.
User avatar #60 to #6 - sexwithyourwife (11/13/2013) [-]
I'll agree to that but Jak and Daxter was pretty much an entirely different game.
#59 to #6 - xexion (11/13/2013) [-]
Crash Bandicoot - Too old to be judged by today's standards. Getting more of what you liked was awesome because it was otherwise impossible to distribute it besides a new game.
Spyro - No expert on Spyro but see Bandicoot
Jak and Daxter - Unfamiliar
Ratchet and Clank - New story, new characters, new weapon/gadgets every game. Each addition changed gameplay a lot in terms of combat vs. platformer balance, shooter vs. action (non-shooter) balance, speed and etc.
Left 4 Dead - No argument here.
Portal - The original was short and lacked much of a story. The second was a full length adventure, that added more/new puzzles and mechanics, characters that aren't Glados, and more.
Ace Combat - Only played 6, but since the genre is dead I wouldn't give two ***** if it was copy and paste mechanics with a few new birds and some new story.
NFS - Various amounts of change in gameplay, new stories (not that it really ever needed them) new cars, mechanics and customization
Amnesia/Penumbra - Relatively small studio that played the same but had a great variety in "scares".
Assassin's Creed - The difference between AC and ACII is phenomenal and great and Ubisoft became **** after that.

Also your forgetting that COD has been breaking sales records all around and the series has done well financially. They can afford things like a brand new engine and everything.
User avatar #72 to #59 - dracory (11/13/2013) [-]
thats where the final bit fits in if they changed the game play (and regaurdless of story most of those game have repeat story related events) if they changed the game play it could feel like playing COD one game then battlefield, it just wouldnt feel right to ssome of the fanbase and no company wants that especially if it's cheaper
#74 to #72 - xexion (11/13/2013) [-]
You can change the gameplay without alienating your fanbase besides just adding things. It's called improvement some series actually experiment with change too.
User avatar #443 to #74 - dracory (11/14/2013) [-]
how can you really change the gameplay with changing the game explain that if the gameplay changes i think i'm playing something else not another game in a series at that point i dont think i would be happy calling it part of the series
#448 to #443 - xexion (11/14/2013) [-]
You don't have to drastically alter the gameplay so far that it's something different in a whole, but improving what already exists is a good start.
User avatar #453 to #448 - dracory (11/14/2013) [-]
thats what he's saying you dont have to make a new engine to improve on what is there a new engine would give it and entirely different feel
#454 to #453 - xexion (11/15/2013) [-]
Not really, although the definition of "engine" in this conversation is slippery, all a new engine could really entail would be things like improved physics, etc.
User avatar #56 to #6 - curtkobain (11/13/2013) [-]
Crash and Spyro were always fun.
Each Jak game brought a new element to the table. The leap from The Precursor Legeacy to Jak 2 was crazy.
People like the way Left 4 Dead is why change it?
Each Assassin's Creed has added quite a lot(though I not so secretly want a PoP game)
#55 to #6 - hermaeuusmora (11/13/2013) [-]
i think the problem with COD is that they focus mostly on the multiplayer rather than adding something worthy to the single player story, most of their storymodes is less than 3 hours of gameplay, thus, people complains it's the same thing again and again
User avatar #20 to #6 - indecisivejew (11/13/2013) [-]
Alright, and how many of those games have been coming out with a new game every single year for the past nine years in a row?

And anyway, not that many people would care about the engine if the game ever actually played any differently, or at least put some effort into the single player anymore. I mean they completely reused an entire cutscene and just applied new character models. Using the same engine is fine as long as the games stay fresh, but they haven't been.
+1
#45 to #20 - bangala has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #50 to #45 - indecisivejew (11/13/2013) [-]
You know that you can just keep FJ open in a separate tab and respond to people when you get notifications, right? Its not like I'm just staring at my comments waiting for minutes at a time. I'm also playing a video game, watching a movie, and chatting with a friend right now.
User avatar #26 to #20 - iyr ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
That I agree with, it's a lot like most sports games.
User avatar #25 to #20 - sketchE ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
battlefield and assassins creed have
User avatar #31 to #25 - indecisivejew (11/13/2013) [-]
Assassin's Creed has only been coming out yearly for five years, and they have drastically altered the setting, added huge new gameplay elements, and even changed engines. But despite all that, Assassin's Creed still gets a ton of flak for coming out yearly. Its leagues more original that Call of Duty, but it still gets a lot of deserved criticism.

And Battlefield is not a yearly series. It used to have expansion packs and spin offs come out close to every year, but never major entries in the series. There was two years of nothing between 3 and 4.
User avatar #32 to #31 - sketchE ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
but how much did they sell for? full price? thats the argument anyone who hates cod will say "its just a map pack" with a new story and different weapons new mechanics new environments and so on
User avatar #36 to #32 - indecisivejew (11/13/2013) [-]
They didn't sell for full price. Why are you using examples that you aren't even familiar with? The battlefield 2 expansions were $20 or $30, and the spin off downloadable games were $20. The Bad Company games were the only things besides the main games to retail at full price, and they had story missions for the first time and had a brand new engine with fully destructible environments that added enough to warrant the price tag. Its not even close to the same as the CoD. In fact the old Battlefield model was used by a lot of people as an example of how Call of Duty should sell their games.
User avatar #38 to #36 - sketchE ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
that was actually a question. but basicly what your saying is that a game where everything is changed except the play style and engine should never be sold for full price more than once?
User avatar #42 to #38 - indecisivejew (11/13/2013) [-]
No, not everything has to be changed, obviously, but there is clearly not enough effort put in to making the campaigns and multiplayer feel unique enough to warrant a $60 to $120 (the cost of the game plus all DLC) purchase. In most any other series I can count the number of new features and have it at least fill up one hand, but I can't say the same for call of duty. Its always just a slight multiplayer tweak, a new 2 and a half hour generic story about terrorists, and a few new guns and maps.
User avatar #19 to #6 - tittylovin (11/13/2013) [-]
Portal 2 had better puzzles, mechanics, stories, voice acting and twists than Portal numero uno.
10/10 made me feel like a wide-eyed kid playing games for the first time again.
User avatar #110 to #19 - oceanfrank ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
Nobody ever said it wasn't a better story or better thought out. It was an entire game instead of the 15 dollar version portal 1 was, what he's trying to say is that why the **** dont people bitch about these games with the exact same engine they used in the previous one?
User avatar #232 to #110 - kombee (11/13/2013) [-]
It doesn't matter wether the engine is reused. The important thing is to make the game feel like a good sequel. People aren't (really) criticizing Cod for reusing the engine, but are instead criticizing the fact that Cod's gameplay elements don't get improved in any way that makes each sequel feel new. It's basically update releases rather than new game titles.
User avatar #16 to #6 - Deathborne (11/13/2013) [-]
i havent played most of those games. but ill put in my 2 cents.
need for speed- valid point, they just add better graphics and maybe physics
assassins creed- horrible point, its a game that focuses on story and all the games have a different story. however the purpose desmond or the abstergo employee has is always the same. (treasure hunt through time)
call of duty- mostly survived by multiplayer gameplay. which is either run and gun, or camp. i personally dont see how thats fun. but if people are dumb enough to waste 60 dollars a year let them.
User avatar #18 to #16 - iyr ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
As I was saying earlier, the game engine doesn't determine level design, narrative, story, art or characters.
The AC games span many exotic locations and times where its necessary for the artists to design new characters, levels and so forth.
However the stealth mechanics, ai behavior, movement and combat are determined by the engine and only needed to by modified a little from game to game, depending on what could be improved or ideas to be implemented that didn't make into previous games.
User avatar #23 to #18 - Deathborne (11/13/2013) [-]
i thought we were talking about the game, not just the engine. i would think they could at least add some gameplay elements. if they must have a game every year, why not do and differant game every other year. all theyd have to do is slap "from the makers of call of duty" on the case and it would sell like hotcakes.
User avatar #28 to #23 - sketchE ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
most people who complain about cod basicly cast aside a new story maps and weapons as enough of a change to keep the game running
User avatar #37 to #28 - Deathborne (11/13/2013) [-]
story- i personally cant stand a railroaded story. all i can see in those types of games is "kill bad guys until you beat the game." (which, until bo2, is all cod was.) (havent played ghosts)
maps- everyone enjoys doing the exact same thing in a differant location. SSDD
guns- i cant see the differance between one assault rifle to the next. all i can see is maybe ROF or reload speed. and on snipers dmg.
#15 to #6 - ddylann (11/13/2013) [-]
i think a big part is that there are so many damn cod games and most other franchises dont come out annually
User avatar #27 to #15 - swagloon (11/13/2013) [-]
To be fair COD is divide by two teams so it kinda comes out every two years. One team that year the other team this year.

Also Pokemon or any other Nintendo franchises.
#29 to #27 - ddylann (11/13/2013) [-]
pokemon does not come out every year not even close and cod does not kinda come out every two years it comes out every year
User avatar #33 to #29 - swagloon (11/13/2013) [-]
Just about every year there's a new pokemon game or a remake. And every year there's a 'new' mario game that just the same over and over.
Also I meant that the different teams that work on COD release their games every two years. MW - 2007, MW2 - 2009, MW3 - 2011, Ghost - 2013
While at the same time World at War - 2008, Black Ops - 2010, Black Ops II - 2012
User avatar #40 to #33 - indecisivejew (11/13/2013) [-]
There have been twelve pokemon games in the 17 years its been around, and half of them have been re releases and special versions. Call of Duty has had 12 console games in the 11 years its been out, and none of them are remakes.

Nothing releases as frequently or remains as stagnant as Call of Duty and sports games.
#35 to #33 - ddylann (11/13/2013) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_(videogameseries)
look at the gaps dude
#39 to #35 - swagloon (11/13/2013) [-]
wow only 6 years that didn't have a new game out.
such gap
much improvement.

But seriously I love Pokemon but as far as I played each game was basically the same with only a slight modification. X and Y are the only ones that did a big leap into game mechanics and they sacrificed developing new pokemon because of it. And I love it.
#227 to #39 - kombee (11/13/2013) [-]
I agree, I love Pokemon too but I really don't like the semi-annual release model, since the game's sequel tends to end up looking, playing and feeling the same as former entries. I'd have loved Pokemon to have improved further than it has currently, not in terms of graphics (although I like the leap to 3d in X and Y) but in terms of new (and meaningful) gameplay elements.
I agree, I love Pokemon too but I really don't like the semi-annual release model, since the game's sequel tends to end up looking, playing and feeling the same as former entries. I'd have loved Pokemon to have improved further than it has currently, not in terms of graphics (although I like the leap to 3d in X and Y) but in terms of new (and meaningful) gameplay elements.
#41 to #39 - ddylann (11/13/2013) [-]
six years is a pretty big chunk of time id say
#201 to #41 - mayoroftownsville (11/13/2013) [-]
Six years total, not six consecutive years. There has never been more than a one year gap between games. On average, a new Pokemon game or set of games comes out ever 1 1/3 years. That's pretty close to once a year. ****** .
#212 to #201 - ddylann (11/13/2013) [-]
id say six years is enough ******* years to not be able to say that a game is annual
#203 to #201 - mayoroftownsville (11/13/2013) [-]
*never more than a two year gap
#34 to #33 - ddylann (11/13/2013) [-]
dude i know how cod works just because different people make the game every year doesnt mean its any different from one game to the next. which still come out EVERY year. also mario is totally different your saying mario kart and galaxy are the same? or like 3d land and sunshine?
#53 to #34 - anonymous (11/13/2013) [-]
OH boy 7 racing games. Also 3d land is a ****** example considering it's one of the most generic Mario games and all the work on it is focusing on a gimmick and a fur suit. At least the Super Mario Brother 2 has all de coin right it's like like it's just like the 3d land but with a coin gimmick.
#14 to #6 - JimChillino (11/13/2013) [-]
you meant Flak
#51 to #14 - anonymous (11/13/2013) [-]
I ******* LOVE COMMAND AND CONQUER!
#13 to #6 - anonymous (11/13/2013) [-]
I thought the problem was the fact that they didn't fix clear problems, and not the fact that they simply remade the concept over and over again. Honestly, I would only hope for them to stick to the same concept that made the game good, but I would expect them to fix problems that exist / upgrade the game in some kind of way. No one wants a SEQUEL to be a different game entirely, but they do want a game that is better than its predecessor in some kind of way (graphically, or otherwise).

With Love,
Anon
User avatar #12 to #6 - wertologist (11/13/2013) [-]
Woah woah woah. Back the **** up. The Jak and Daxter series is not full of games that are all the same.

Jak and Daxter: Run around maps collecting orbs, power cells, and solving puzzles using powerups

Jak II: Run around a massive city fighting a dictator and robotic monsters using guns and a transformation

Jak III: Though somewhat similar to II, but adds much more to it including an entirely new area, many new guns, desert cars, redesigned city, and a whole new transformation.

Jak X: Drastically different than I, II, and III. It's a combat racing game.

Don't you dare say that each game in the series is a carbon copy of it's predecessor.
User avatar #125 to #12 - dkillakai ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
Jak and Daxter: Lost Frontier....well we'll pretend this one doesn't exist
I bought the ps3 special edition with all three original Jak games, then as I got to Gol and Maia's Citadel my ps3 yellow lighted
User avatar #379 to #125 - wertologist (11/13/2013) [-]
Lost Frontier exists, but since it wasn't made by Naughtydog it is not considered canon.
#17 to #12 - iyr ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
Sir, I think you completely misunderstood my point.   
The first three jak games all used approximately the same game engine with minor tweaks or additions here and there.   
The game engine does not determine narrative, level design, art sets, audio sets or story; these can all be drastically different from sequel to sequel, but the mechanics of the game from movement, weapons, minigames, vehicle physics, health and ai behavior are determined by the engine.    
 I've played and beaten all of the Jak games, I was really upset when they removed all of the eco mechanics in the sequels    
Jak X doesn't count because it's an entirely different genre from its prequels.
Sir, I think you completely misunderstood my point.
The first three jak games all used approximately the same game engine with minor tweaks or additions here and there.
The game engine does not determine narrative, level design, art sets, audio sets or story; these can all be drastically different from sequel to sequel, but the mechanics of the game from movement, weapons, minigames, vehicle physics, health and ai behavior are determined by the engine.
I've played and beaten all of the Jak games, I was really upset when they removed all of the eco mechanics in the sequels
Jak X doesn't count because it's an entirely different genre from its prequels.
User avatar #378 to #17 - wertologist (11/13/2013) [-]
Just because games have the same game engine it doesn't mean they are going to be considered the same or similar. Take Halo: combat Evolved and Stubbs the Zombie for example. Two completely different games by two different companies, but use the same game engine
User avatar #217 to #17 - kombee (11/13/2013) [-]
But then... doesn't your first argument kinda fall flat?
Because, people aren't criticizing Cod for the engine used, but for the fact that there aren't any new elements to the gameplay. It's practically the same game over when it comes to Cod, not much innovation (at least not in the multiplayer aspect).

With Spyro, Crash n' Jak and Daxter the gameplay elements were drastically different from title to title, especially compared to Cod. The premise and controls were basically the same, but the world you were playing in was different, the challenges you had to oppose were different, there were even introduced new characters and heck they basically just expanded on the game in more ways than one.

Honestly, Spyro's, Crash's and J n' D's had improved on so many elements in their sequels that they essentialy didn't feel the same at all. If you play or look at a playthrough of Crash Bandicoot 1 to the third installment (called Warped), they were drastically different in how they played and how the story progressed.
So I really don't see how their sequels can be associated with Cod's way of making sequals in any way.
#11 to #6 - mtndewisgreat (11/13/2013) [-]
I agree, even though I'm not buying another COD game after MW2. I just wish they'd focus more on the Multiplayer improvements instead of just new single player content.
User avatar #10 to #6 - keiishiyama (11/13/2013) [-]
Black Ops II was a good COD game because, while it didn't reinvent the wheel like Ghosts claimed it was going to do, BO2 changed the setting, added new concepts to match, and reworked the customization menu (and ******* removed all possibility of decent sniping from their ehh-level maps).

Using your logic, any series in which the core concept of the games are not completely different is the same game over and over. I'd say Left 4 Dead 2 wasn't a huge change, but the workshop makes up for it by allowing users to make their own content and use their creative talents in a way Valve may not have conceived. Same with Portal 2, but Valve also added many new puzzle concepts and a co-op mode to boot.

Ghosts does not, in my opinion, even attempt to innovate. It also wasn't optimized for PCs because the new IW is up its ass in arrogance. The new squad-based thing doesn't seem all that prevalent, and the "pick-ten" system is confusing in the game, and the "dynamic" maps that were discussed don't seem to be at all dynamic. BUT, I think a few of the map designs are better than BO2, and the redesigned perk and killstreak systems are improvements (if only IW moved away from kills and favored point streaks, which I don't think they have).
User avatar #75 to #10 - Yojimbo (11/13/2013) [-]
I didn't particularly enjoy BO2 because it paled in comparison to the original, but it was a fun game to dick around in. The key word is fun. All the camos and emblems and everything was ridiculous, but that's what made it fun. Ghosts is just boring, and all it's "amazing redefining features!" are all fluff. The character customization is pointless and hardly original (Black Ops 1), the corner lean is impractical and hardly ever utilized online, the spawns are horrendous, an the game has actually taken steps BACK by eliminating S&D, Theater Mode, and still not allowing camos on secondarys. The campaign is piss poor too.
#7 to #6 - Visual (11/13/2013) [-]
You're just forgetting that most of those games added something worthwhile to the series as a whole and not something that should be free DLC
User avatar #9 to #7 - godhatesmaggots (11/13/2013) [-]
like new characters and story? cod does that too
User avatar #21 to #9 - indecisivejew (11/13/2013) [-]
No, like maybe a single practical new gameplay mechanic and a story that doesn't seem like it was written by a fifth grader who just learned what the word "terrorist" means.
User avatar #172 to #21 - asked **User deleted account** (11/13/2013) [-]
first off, the MW series story is much better than you think, so please quit criticizing it like a retard. say, you love half life 2 and you're talking about it, would you like me ******** all over your conversation and saying "heheh the story looks like it was writen by a 4th grader who just learnt what a dictatorship was", second off there are many new gameplay mechanics over the game.


so check yourself before you wreck yourself
User avatar #253 to #172 - mistafishy ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
Gameplay "mechanics" do not include maps, guns, storylines etc.

Plus, yeah, MW is the better part of the series... But still not an excuse for an entire decade of recycling.
User avatar #183 to #172 - lolme (11/13/2013) [-]
I wouldn't care if you said that, cause Half-Life 2 actually has a good story while COD has a "BLOCK BUSTER 2013" story, same **** all over. And the entire singleplayer feels like you're walking trough a hallway with tree's and **** painted on the walls, it's almost claustrophobic. Only COD games I've played that was fun was COD4 and COD2, I did not play them for the singleplayer, but I did try it.
User avatar #184 to #183 - asked **User deleted account** (11/13/2013) [-]
if you think thatabout the singleplayer, you're probably playing the wrong game.

also, everyone ***** on CoD for the "hallway" feel (even though that never happens) and the story, but how about doom, a game everyone loves?

1. Whole map is literally a corridor. Unlike CoD.
2. Story : Random guy in random place fighting random aliens with random weapons

10/10 game, goty all years.
User avatar #390 to #184 - lolme (11/13/2013) [-]
Doom was amazing, it was groundbreaking when it came out, both the first and the third. The graphics were insane, it was one of the first horror games to actually be scary and it did what it was supposed to do, scare you and make your eyes orgasm from the graphics. Call of Duty however has done the same thing over, and over, and over, and over, and over again and they still have the nerve to charge 60€ for a tiny update on the engine (People with 1500€ PC's are getting 40fps on the new COD and they charge 60€ for that **** , suck a big black one is all I have to say to that.), copy n' paste cliche story and a horrid multiplayer. (This is my personal opinion.) Do you see DOOM being released every year? Do you see doom use the same engine? Do you see doom charging 60€? No. Besides, comparing a horror sp game to COD is like comparing apples and oranges.
User avatar #451 to #390 - asked **User deleted account** (11/14/2013) [-]
you gotta pay the trolls toll to get in the boys hole
User avatar #452 to #451 - lolme (11/14/2013) [-]
I have no idea what you're trying to say. G'day, fegit.
User avatar #257 to #184 - mistafishy ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
Doom is an entirely different beast. CoD is built off of run n' gun multiplayer that is just a reiteration of itself every match and every release with reskins and "new" guns. [Why don't they recycle the old guns AND make new ones? having 300 firearms wouldn't hurt them, would it?]

Doom is supposed to be a hallway, it's the point of the game. Expansion is not necessary because elongating the hallway is what keeps it engaging. There are flower pots further down the hall where there were paintings the previous game, it varies. CoD doesn't have that effect...
User avatar #241 to #184 - thundagawd ONLINE (11/13/2013) [-]
To be fair, Doom basically pioneered the FPS genre, and "open environments" were near impossible to render back then so the corridor feel is understandable, and it became iconic, which is why the following Doom games kept the corridor feel (not to mention Doom is classified as a horror series, and corridors are popular in horror games, just look at FEAR, Dead Space, Resident Evil, etc.). CoD gets a lot of flak for it because it has great shooting mechanics (I'm not a fanboy, but I'd be lying if I said CoD didn't have some of the slickest controls in any FPS out there) but several missions take place in closed environments (there really aren't as many as people say there is, but there's still a notable amount). As for the single player campaign, I found the ones in CoD4 and MW2 were both great in my opinion (especially Chernobyl/Pripyat in CoD4, that ghostly child laughter as MacMillan explains what happened to the city after the reactor meltdown gave me goosebumps), but the quality of the campaign in the subsequent games following those 2 slowly went downhill in the favor of online multiplayer, since Activision figured "Why waste money developing a portion of the game 95% of people will probably never even play?"
User avatar #182 to #172 - indecisivejew (11/13/2013) [-]
Do you know what the difference between facts and opinions are?

You can enjoy lowest common denominator garbage if you want, but that doesn't make it objectively good.
 Friends (0)