CoD Advanced Warfare
 

Is anyone else looking into this game? I think it looks pretty cool. Im hoping its sorta like Titanfall. Im planning to preorder it from GameStop for the Black Ops 2 camo :D

It looks exactly like Titanfall, it's actually really stupid. It completely destroys the concept of call of duty: a simple warfare game. Now there's like hover bikes and sh**, what is even going on, extremely disappointed.

You're not actually buying this **** are you?

Waiting for CoD to finally end like it should...

Why does everyone hate on CoD so much? I mean the Infinity Ward games are **** past MW2 but all of Treyarch's games are amazing. Still playing BO2 and don't see why people hate it so much except for the community.

We don't really hate on CoD in general...

There just seems to be a lack of originality in their newer games.

I am indeed bursting with joy for the release of overrated trash. There's a reason I don't use toilet paper and that reason is Call of Duty (get it duty?) teehee

It's not so much the companies I blame, but the consumers themselves for buying all the games encouraging sequel after sequel. There's nothing unique enough that Call of Duty does anymore that acquires my interest to buy the next game.

well as for one, I'm really excited to try this one. Can't wait for more details.

All the children are playing in Call of Duty's front lawn as it bakes up its bland Advanced Warefare cookies.

I usually get suckered into buying these games, but I think for the first time I'm actually just going to have to pass.

For some reason, i have a suspicion that theres going to be a lawsuit since i think its ubisoft who already made a shooter called advanced warfighter. And being this is murica and you can sue for anything, i wouldnt be surprised if this was bought to court because of the word advanced. I doubt it will happen though.

I blame EA for that. bf4 could have easily shut down cod but it had such a ****ty launch it still remains inferior to CoD.

Treyarchs CoDs are though way better than infinaty wards and from what i have noticed Treyarch puts somewhat of an attempt to change the game by gadgets (mms sight, motion sensors, spike cam, jammers, TI, target finde). Unfortunatly though, no one ever takes advantage of these gadgets since they are "useless" when in reality when used right, the game changes darastically. I did take advantage of this in blops and the gameplay changed completly. I reccomend you go into a cod game and use the gadgets to your advantage, its fun.

The thing is, consumers are still encouraging the hell out of this franchise even though it is well past its prime back with the 4/5/6/7 games. Every other game since seems like a tacky addition that's pretty analogous to the passing years of sports franchises, offering only a handful of new "features". I honestly feel like the whole peer pressure deal is playing in to why this franchise is still milking the cow and still getting a lot of return, since everyone wants to have the new one to play with their friends. It's a nasty snowball effect.

I personally have no qualms about the gameplay of the 4-7 games that I've mentioned before. Aside from painful balance issues (hello to the three guns per game ever used competitively), the game is a fun and relaxing - as long as you don't take this **** seriously, please don't - arcade-style, fast paced shooter which is fine for a quick casual gaming session over the likes of Battlefield or Halo which require more skill and tactical activity which isn't terribly casual-friendly. Of course, each game has its exceptions. Competitive Call of Duty was actually fun to play and watch, and required immense awareness and skill at times. Halo's got Action Sack and Customs/Forge, and Battlefield has some of the best ways to troll people. But in general, CoD is a fun, casual shooter which appeals to the masses and I have no problem with that, and I have no problem personally with the games themselves.

Where I think the franchise is lacking though, is the community and the regurgitated games Activision ****s out year after year with very little to offer in terms of improvement or innovation in gameplay. Not to mention the absolutely repulsive community that can only be overshadowed by voice chat in League of Legends ranked queues. If Activision spaced out the games like Microsoft had Bungie do, we'd see a huge increase in quality and maybe, just maybe, the game would be fresh and exciting every time it comes around like Halo. But they won't, because they're busy drowning in the money of helpless consumers and they don't give a **** about the quality of the games as much as they do the money.

That's why I hate CoD.

Not trying to add to the bash train but it looks completely uninspired and boring.
Just the title "Advanced Warfare" *yawn*.
Nothing about the trailer was interesting either. Adding a CG Kevin Spacey trying to give some badass speech was laughably bad. What is he doing in a video game. Gave me lulz.

Judging from the last few games I don't expect there to be any features that will pull me in.

Eh you guys know this COD being developed by Sledgehammer Games? This is their first COD so I'm eager to learn how they will do it. Will it be good or a fail?

Fail

I cannot even disagree.

They should've ended right after the release of BO2 imo.

is anyone else getting real tired of cod making there campaign so heavily influenced by other games, movies etc? Like the tank mission in ghosts was majorly influenced by the mission thunderrun in the bf3 campaign.

No, because with all the time Activision gives the devs to develop and storyboard, any original missions will probably be **** and cliche.

...Wait.

Yeah, Black Ops and Black Ops 2 had the only somewhat decent campaigns in the whole series imo. I loved IW's multiplayer and all, but they couldn't have been more cliche.

I love how everyone was hating on the black ops campaign and it was one of the most fun campaigns I have ever played for a shooter. Breaking out of vercuda was so much fun

cod zombies>all zombie videogames
cod multiplayer<battlefield multiplayer
cod campaign>battlefield campaign

I did some research. The game actually looks promising. The campaign looks like its a lot less vertical as you can upgrade your suit and climb over walls and get to places you cant by foot. I might actually get this game.

Black Ops 2 is my favorite CoD and I never play Campaigns so...awk

I am interested in this CoD however, they only showed elements of the Campaign, not the multiplayer so I will not disregard or consider it until multiplayer is shown.

Don't understand why people are bash training right now lol, you really need to post 3+ times about how much you dislike CoD? Play a different game then!

This franchise needs to end x.x

To all haters saying this series need to end, just stop. It won't end. Not anytime soon. COD to many fans(including myself) is the game where you can hop on with buddies, join a game mode, and get into the quick action game play. While I do agree that Ghosts is OK, COD as a whole is pretty good. I know there are haters that dislike the game but to say the series need to end..What would happen if your favorite series end? COD got its fans. COD got its haters. But most of all, COD got the haters that have to repeat that its the same thing every year. If you don't like it, don't play it. Simple.

I don't think people realize if CoD ended, things like Titanfall and Battlefield would not exist. They would not try to get better in order to dethrone CoD as the lead FPS and in turn, all those other FPS' you like and enjoy would be leagues behind seeing as they would have no one to compete with. Even if you don't like CoD, saying it needs to end is only beneficial if you don't like FPS' at all

I don't necessarily want CoD to end.

I just want CoD devs to wake up and realize that gaming nowadays isn't about how good you can 360 no-scope 7 year olds,

It's about the storyline and plot of the game itself.

Look at Black Ops and Bioshock Infinite, the gameplay was pretty simple but the stroyline were total mind****s.

Thus making them really good.

That's what "next gen" gaming should be like.

This is literally my first reaction the the trailer:

"Mmhmm... Ok something about democracy, bla bla bla, I'll listen to my NSL teacher instead. Mmmm ok we've got hover-bikes now. Alright... Weird jumpy suits. Mmhmm... Explosions... Gunfights... Hey don't I have AP exams to study for?"

CoD will never have a single-player focus, and there are much better shooter games if you're looking for solid campaigns.

There is nothing wrong with having a game that's fun to hop on with friends and play the hell out of. CoD is a pick-up-and play sort of game and that's what its main appeal is. It was hella fun to play with a large group of friends.

No one is criticizing the gameplay as a whole, but the way the games are produced. The problem with CoD is that devs are given a 2 year dev cycle and that is it. It is hard-coded and written and stone, and they do not give their devs ANY excuse to delay or refine anything. They, and by they I mean the suits, have taken the franchise and turned it into a money-grabbing scheme. I do not blame the devs, no one should. They do their best with what they're handed, but if there is a major bug, or maybe they couldn't quite finish the campaign the way they intended... guess what happens? It's released anyway. This is because the suits don't care about the quality of the game, but rather getting that new CoD out every. Single. Year.

Thankfully now they have turned to a 3-year dev cycle, but I feel that's not because they want the games to do better, but the fact that the appeal is finally running its course.

CoD is fun because of friends mostly, and it sucks that every year you had to get the next CoD not because you wanted to... but because if you didn't you'd be playing alone while your friends played the next version. I enjoyed Black Ops, yet before I could really get into it, it was already time to move on to the next. None of the iterations make truly innovative changes, and instead you could take various new ones and they'd be better lumped together into single games rather than 4 different copies.

TL:DR? The problem is quantity over quality, plain and simple. Activision is known for milking franchises until they're dead, and CoD is no different. They will make sure to shove it down our throats until we don't WANT it anymore, and then they'll toss it aside because they don't give a ****. It is a ****ty, horrible approach to developing games and represents everything wrong with the way a lot of the major publishers treat gaming.

Unfortunatly you will need to get used to this 2 year cycle crap. Since unfortunatly, the only people who give a damn about game quaility is nintendo. Once again, video game industrys only give a damn about shareholders, not the players. If something like this works, you better beleve they will stick to the plan since studies have been done and the most popular game sales are the ones that are the same base mechanics and are the same. Bottom line, cod is a cashcow game, theres not going to be inovative mind blowing gameplay changes. Leave that for another title to take the place of cod and that become the new imdustry standered.

Here's an example of why that won't happen:

Battlefield: Modern Combat - release date: [ps2]: OCT 24, 2005, [xbox360]: MAR 30, 2006

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare - release date: [360 & ps3] NOV 5, 2007

Basically what theyre doing for this CoD is recycling old content/ideas and taking some from Titanfall. Ignorant gamers who dont know what a good game is will buy this for sure. In mu opinion, those of you wanting the franchise to end and all that are the people who know what makes a good game. I didnt get CoD ghosts and when I played it at friends house I was relieved to know that I dodnt waste 60$. CoD ghosts is just another recycled piece of *** with no originality, same old graphics, same old perks, killstreaks, etc

The saddest part about CoD gamers today is that most of them havent even touched the first 5 games of the franchise.

What you guys should be making a thread about is Battlefront. If BF has multiplayer (Im sure it will if EA is smart) it will be 2x better than any CoD game.

Why would EA stop making their shooter games if CoD ended? If CoD ended it would give EA a huge playerbase to sell to and mke even more money...


Also if you dont agree with what I said about CoD 'recycling content and ideas, try playing some of the older CoDs and then watch the trailer for Advanced Warfare

if CoD ended oh holy **** battlefield would turn into the next CoD

Just saying, statistics show only about 30% or so players worldwide play multiplayer cod.

However, Sledgehammer is focusing on the competitive side of multiplayer. That's a big risk to take considering the bad blood between casual and competitive players.

Just gonna say this too, if there's anything I could change about multiplayer, I would lower the damage guns do, increase movement speed while ADS (If people wan't a run'n'gun it should at least be a little more based on skill rather than who can shoot first and faster), and remove that CS ripoff Search and Destroy and replacing it with something more original and better suited for competitive play.

FU SnD is awesome.

Source please.

You should probably re-read what I said and then ask yourself where I said they would stop making battlefield.

Why do people keep saying CoD needs to end? Just because you don't find it enjoyable anymore doesn't mean other people don't enjoy playing it. And they shouldn't have to stop making games because a few people got bored of playing them.

Dunno about what Latte said, but about 40% of people do finish the campaign according to the raptr achievement stats. So, it's pretty considerable.

Talking about this:
I'm sure 40% of people complete the campaign, a lot of people play campaign on this. The claim that 70% of people that own CoD don't play multiplayer is what I'm calling bull**** on.

Drift0r. And he is the guy who knows what he's doing when it comes to raw data, soooo...

30% of players sounds completely wrong. That's what most people buy the game for.

that sounds good to me, all the people that I know buy cod for the campaigns really.

is this a joke

I know of only one person that plays CoD for campaigns. That is 1 out of my like 30 friends that play CoD. Okayyyy

Why would someone pay 60$ to just play a campaign that only lasts a few hours?

How would BF not exist? Its been around just as long if not longer than CoD, excuse my laziness for not caring to check.
Titanfall is made by Respawn ex Infinity Ward developers, oh and guess who published it? EA because the ex IW employees hate Activision.

New games come and go. Not every FPS is made to compete with CoD.
Does Bioshock aim at the same audience as CoD? No. Does Skyrim? No. Completely different games.
Simply saying some games wouldn't exist without Call of Duty is a lousy statement.

Call of Duty started a horrible trend that will eventually ruin any Triple A FPS titles. It needs to go away.

Titanfall and Battlefield are horrible examples because it isn't a run and gun shooter. I can't for certain for Titanfall however.

Excuse my wording, they would not exist as they are today. Battlefield and Titanfall were made to compete with CoD. Without competition there would be no improvisation, they wouldn't feel the need to improve and make their games as good as they are. Same with pretty much anything in life. Competition breeds innovation. No idea how you pulled Skyrim or Bioshock out of that statement, I said nothing about them and including them in your argument about FPS when neither of them are? weirddddd

In any case, I do believe that most companies that make FPS' would not make them as good as they do if they didn't have something to beat or a crown to take so to speak. I never said they wouldn't exist per say, just that they wouldn't be as good if they had nothing to compete with. *shrug*

Titanfall is way more run and gun than CoD lol...