COD Advanced Warfare

[Vankrys]

Maybe this CoD will be good. From what i gather on the net.

You'll earn points every mission that can be used to upgrade your EXO suit. Using the EXO suit, you can climb walls with magnetic gloves, boost-dodge toward cover, perform super-jumps that let you get to higher ground, use optic camouflage for cloaking, and hover in mid-air.

Your arsenal includes "variable grenades," which can be switched from concussion to threat detection while they cook. The threat detection grenade reveals enemy locations and makes this information available via an augmented reality system visible in your visor.

so including some RPG element to CoD not unlike modern FPS such as far cry 3 or crysis. I think this could be a departure from the traditional corridor shooting.

[Wilian]

Crysis of Duty it is then.

[Keile]

Okay, let's just be a little realistic here. I will agree for the time, they were average/good but they were nothing but on rails, scenematic games, they literally had nothing going for them other than shooting nazies in a narrow pathed level. For the time being, that was okay but saying that it is somehow better, when it is the exact same as today is incorrect.

Also CoD 1 and 2 had multiplayer.

The thing is, even though they were on-rails they were well DONE and immersive. Back then that was the norm for most shooters. But everything else they did was NEW, and the series was known for being unique in that they went the extra mile to make sure everything was as historically accurate as possible. Medal of Honor was it's biggest competitor and they got the leg up on them in this respect.

BUT by todays standards an on-rails shooter is not okay. They slap on single player and focus on Multiplayer because hordes of drones will flock out and buy it. If they want to focus only on multiplayer, they should cut the campaign completely and just make it a Multiplayer only title of $30-$40. But as it stands no CoD is worth the current $60 pricetag.

Um... lol. CoD was always about the multiplayer.

"historically accurate" was almost as funny as well LOL!


Anyways, this new CoD sounds like Titanfall. "Players will have "enhanced player movement and verticality" skills like boost jumps and grappling, as well as cloaking abilities and biomechanics." Boy, where have I heard that before... Haven't bought a CoD game since CoD4, no loss at all.

It was never about the multiplayer. Back when CoD 1 and 2 came out it was about the campaigns. They were immersive, and big in scale (or at least simulated being big in scale for the time). And the original ones WERE historically accurate, it was only as the series went on that they decided to really change shit, until then they did the perfect job of plopping you into the battle as a normal soldier (this was a big deal back then! Even in other similar titles, like Medal of Honor, you ended up being just some generic badass who could take 100 bullets to the chest and keep on running). You weren't some super soldier who was unstoppable, this was one of the first FPS games where you could die in only a couple of hits. This was back when people were used to being able shooters that used the age-old Doom formula of just run and shoot, screw using cover! The scene that sticks out to me the most when it comes to this is the Russian campaign intro: you hold the ammo, partner shoots the gun and if he dies you pick it up and keep firing. Lets you know that at any moment you could die as well. That is what got them noticed, the multiplayer was secondary. And they were very accurate, especially when it came to the weapons. It was one of the FIRST games to actually make the weapons act the way they actually acted (and sound as well. I recall watching the production of the game and at the time it was the only one where they actually went out on a shooting range and recorded the real sounds of the guns firing. Back then that was just an amazing concept).

he series has done a complete 180 on this philosophy and went back to making you the total badass save-the-world one-and-only (or several, actually, since you play a few characters. But each one is basically the badass of their group) hero. The only thing the game still has from its origins is the weapon accuracy, but that is also mostly a requirement nowadays.

So basically, kid, you have no clue what you are talking about. But then again when those games came out you probably weren't even conceived....

[NuLogic]

This made me laugh



Post constructively. Infracted. -Lucetia

[HAcoreRD]

I'm alone here. But i want 1 of the following:

*A (new) Vietnam FPS (like BF: Vietrnam)
*Korean War FPS
*World War 1 FPS (even if it's literally trench warfare, I'd be ok with it)

I don't need this theoretical future warfare. BO2 pushed that envelope, now we need something different.

I skipped Ghosts, I might be 0/2 on Cod in the next 2 years

[Zeta333]

I'm alone here. But i want 1 of the following:

*A (new) Vietnam FPS (like BF: Vietrnam)
*Korean War FPS
*World War 1 FPS (even if it's literally trench warfare, I'd be ok with it)

I don't need this theoretical future warfare. BO2 pushed that envelope, now we need something different.

I skipped Ghosts, I might be 0/2 on Cod in the next 2 years

im sorry but im done with behind the times fps games. I dont want to play a ww1 fps where all they had was bolt action rifles. I honestly want more games like 2142, not so distant futures are dumb, i want somthing 100-200 years in the future.

[Deleted]

I'm quite proud of what I've done

Post constructively. Infracted. -Lucetia