Do you think the COD franchise is failing?

[Blue Knight]

Thing is, for a sequel to be truly innovative ( a big deal on gaming, people who complain over changes generally are blinded by nostalgia) it should optimally surpass the last one not in a linear (game streamlining, better visuals) way, but on an exponential way (new mechanics, big, ambitious changes and use of hardware)

I'll give examples using the Mario series, which got called stagnant here by @Fyzzu, the argument that only new levels and powerups are introduced, is quite sadly, inaccurate.

A sequel should:

a) make an entirely new concept (Super Mario 64 is an example of this)

or b) refine the concept of the prequel and add more content (Super Mario Bros. The Lost Levels and Super Mario Galaxy 2 are examples of this)

or c) expand upon a concept by adding more ideas, or merging concepts (Super Mario Bros 2/USA is an example of this [The game was envisioned as a Mario game first, before being changed to Doki Doki Panic, unlike common knowledge says] by adding vertical scrolling over, multiple chatacters, multiple mini stages inside the stages, etc. Super Mario 3D Land and World are other examples of this, the former merged concepts from 3D and 2D plataforming entries, and the latter further expanded upon it by fixing it's flaws on top of adding the long lost concept made in SMB2/USA, multiple characters, and adding proper multiplayer, something first seen on Galaxy, which 3D World also added unto)

Out of these, b) should only be done very few times, normally, doing it more than twice generates stagnation, as seen on the New Super Mario Bros subseries (yes, I'm criticizing a Mario game, I'm not in fanboy mode atm) after the Wii entry. And this is mostly what the CoD series has done for not two, not three, but TWELVE games so far. The series has changed, yes. But has it done truly big changes to itself in every entry?

 

[2205]

Out of these, b) should only be done very few times, normally, doing it more than twice generates stagnation, as seen on the New Super Mario Bros subseries (yes, I'm criticizing a Mario game, I'm not in fanboy mode atm) after the Wii entry. And this is mostly what the CoD series has done for not two, not three, but TWELVE games so far. The series has changed, yes. But has it done truly big changes to itself in every entry?

I'll just check the latest games:

Infinite Warfare: Space combat, space ships
Black Ops 3: New Specialist system, new traversal system
Advanced Warfare: Exo suits that gave new systems for traversal as well
Black Ops 2: Story branching system, choices you made in the campaign affected the way the story was progressing.

That's just a couple of titles, and just a few features I can remember quickly, but I need to mention that one brought the new Zombies mode, one brought the Spec Ops mode, there's even an Arcade mode.

12 games? Pleache check each game on its own before saying they did 12 times the same thing. It's not true at all. All you said about Mario, how they improved, added more to multiplayer yada yada, change all Mario to CoD and it will look like you actually take a real look at CoD Did they do a BIG change for EVERY entry? No, they didn't, but it's completely false that there's no major changes between the 12 games.

 

[Tyrone]

In my opinion, yes it is.
I've played about every game in the series, and the only one i like is black ops 2, but even then i dont play it often...
Advanced warfare was crap, and so was blops 3.
Infinite warfare is looking cool, but im not buying it due to having a better space game called halo which is much, much better the call of duty.
Me and my bro always played blops 2 and mw3, but now we highly dislike them,COD just sucks in my opinion...the graphics also arent the best.
Call of duty is now call of dooty for me.
Also, i never really liked activision, only games ive liked from them are a couple of spiderman games and snoopys grand adventure.

 

[Natsu Swagneel]

In my opinion, yes it is.
I've played about every game in the series, and the only one i like is black ops 2, but even then i dont play it often...
Advanced warfare was crap, and so was blops 3.
Infinite warfare is looking cool, but im not buying it due to having a better space game called halo which is much, much better the call of duty.
Me and my bro always played blops 2 and mw3, but now we highly dislike them,COD just sucks in my opinion...the graphics also arent the best.
Call of duty is now call of dooty for me.
Also, i never really liked activision, only games ive liked from them are a couple of spiderman games and snoopys grand adventure.

Me and my brother used to play Black Ops 2 and MW3 all the time! Though, we aren't really into CoD all that much anymore.

 

[9070]

Well, it's failing now at least

Any publicity is good publicity.

People saying Battlefield 1 will sell more than Infinite Warfare are seriously mistaken. Call of Duty has been the best selling game for several years (though I do think Grand Theft Auto V took first place in 2013, to be fair). Dislikes on a trailer isn't going to change that. Everything they've shown of Infinite Warfare looks good if not great.

 

[-_Roberto_-]

With advanced movement and all, Call of Duty is falling by the MINUTE. Their new game, Infinite Warfare, couldn't be changed back from advanced movement. InfinityWard didn't find out the public was hating on it until the game was almost done. It would cost a ton of money, time, and effort to delete ALL of their progress on a game just to delete ONE little thing people hate about the game, which is advanced movement. I have a suggestion if Call of Duty wants to keep making paper and keep putting the Battlefield franchise to shame. MW4, and NO advanced movement.

 

[Iridium Winter]

Thing is, for a sequel to be truly innovative ( a big deal on gaming, people who complain over changes generally are blinded by nostalgia) it should optimally surpass the last one not in a linear (game streamlining, better visuals) way, but on an exponential way (new mechanics, big, ambitious changes and use of hardware)

I'll give examples using the Mario series, which got called stagnant here by @Fyzzu, the argument that only new levels and powerups are introduced, is quite sadly, inaccurate.

A sequel should:

a) make an entirely new concept (Super Mario 64 is an example of this)

or b) refine the concept of the prequel and add more content (Super Mario Bros. The Lost Levels and Super Mario Galaxy 2 are examples of this)

or c) expand upon a concept by adding more ideas, or merging concepts (Super Mario Bros 2/USA is an example of this [The game was envisioned as a Mario game first, before being changed to Doki Doki Panic, unlike common knowledge says] by adding vertical scrolling over, multiple chatacters, multiple mini stages inside the stages, etc. Super Mario 3D Land and World are other examples of this, the former merged concepts from 3D and 2D plataforming entries, and the latter further expanded upon it by fixing it's flaws on top of adding the long lost concept made in SMB2/USA, multiple characters, and adding proper multiplayer, something first seen on Galaxy, which 3D World also added unto)

Out of these, b) should only be done very few times, normally, doing it more than twice generates stagnation, as seen on the New Super Mario Bros subseries (yes, I'm criticizing a Mario game, I'm not in fanboy mode atm) after the Wii entry. And this is mostly what the CoD series has done for not two, not three, but TWELVE games so far. The series has changed, yes. But has it done truly big changes to itself in every entry?

Wouldn't every game series be stagnant by that definition?
Zelda has done B more than twice.

 

[-_Roberto_-]

Any publicity is good publicity.
People saying Battlefield 1 will sell more than Infinite Warfare are seriously mistaken. Call of Duty has been the best selling game for several years (though I do think Grand Theft Auto V took first place in 2013, to be fair). Dislikes on a trailer isn't going to change that. Everything they've shown of Infinite Warfare looks good if not great.

Grand Theft Auto will replace COD and battlefield in the coming years. For one, it has a higher budget than any game in the world, is played by very many people, it's more realistic, and you can shoot people. Plus there's not those annoying maps like there is on Battlefield and Call of Duty where you can hardly navigate. Take MW3 for example, on the first mission there are cars everywhere, and smoke, and it's impossible to see any enemies. If you're lucky and get past it, then you have to deal with those hard helicopter and vehicle missions.

 

[2205]

Grand Theft Auto will replace COD and battlefield in the coming years. For one, it has a higher budget than any game in the world, is played by very many people, it's more realistic, and you can shoot people. Plus there's not those annoying maps like there is on Battlefield and Call of Duty where you can hardly navigate. Take MW3 for example, on the first mission there are cars everywhere, and smoke, and it's impossible to see any enemies. If you're lucky and get past it, then you have to deal with those hard helicopter and vehicle missions.

Not the same game type for not the same people. You are comparing different games, people don't play CoD to steal cars and race, for instance. Moreover, you know nothing about games' budget

As for MW3, it's not about being lucky either, if you pay attention it's quite easy to progress. From what I see, CoD is just too hard for you and you don't like it because of that.

 

[-_Roberto_-]

Not the same game type for not the same people. You are comparing different games, people don't play CoD to steal cars and race, for instance. Moreover, you know nothing about games' budget

As for MW3, it's not about being lucky either, if you pay attention it's quite easy to progress. From what I see, CoD is just too hard for you and you don't like it because of that.

In MW3 you steal a boat. You use it to escape from the Russian boat. And CoD isn't too hard for me. I almost beat it before my mom donated it to some greedy hobos in the Salvation Army. I got past the stage where you in Somalia fighting the Somalians for whatever reason even though its a war against Russians.

 

[2205]

It's not too hard for you, but you complained in the above post that it was hard, go figure.

Moreover, because you get out in a boat once doesn't make it anything like GTA still.

 

[Pookie]

Treyarch had made over 11 billion dollars since this franchise was made. Ignore the opinions and face the facts. This franchise is not dying.

 

[-_Roberto_-]

It's not too hard for you, but you complained in the above post that it was hard, go figure.

Moreover, because you get out in a boat once doesn't make it anything like GTA still.

i didnt say it was LIKE GTA. I said it would be REPLACED by GTA.

 

[Iridium Winter]

i didnt say it was LIKE GTA. I said it would be REPLACED by GTA.

And I'm sure that Star Wars will be replaced by 007.
Things don't get replaced by things from completely different genres. GTA and CoD are different in so many ways that one couldn't replace the other.

 

[-_Roberto_-]

And I'm sure that Star Wars will be replaced by 007.
Things don't get replaced by things from completely different genres. GTA and CoD are different in so many ways that one couldn't replace the other.

They aren't completely different genres. Third person shooters and first person shooters are practically the same thing. and just because there's a few minor differences between the two games doesn't mean one can't replace the other. GTA is a shooting game where you kill people with missions. COD is a shooting game where you kil people with missions. The only real difference with GTA is that its third person and you can drive cars.

 

[Iridium Winter]

They aren't completely different genres. Third person shooters and first person shooters are practically the same thing. and just because there's a few minor differences between the two games doesn't mean one can't replace the other. GTA is a shooting game where you kill people with missions. COD is a shooting game where you kil people with missions. The only real difference with GTA is that its third person and you can drive cars.

Minor differences? CoD is a linear game where you have to fight a war. GTA is an open world game that lets you do whatever you want. You don't fight wars in GTA and you don't do whatever you want in CoD. That's just putting it as simply as possible, there are far more differences than just those. Sure, you can kill people in both, but that's where the similarity ends. That's like saying Splinter Cell and Assassin's Creed only have minor differences, when in reality they're completely different.

 

[-_Roberto_-]

Minor differences? CoD is a linear game where you have to fight a war. GTA is an open world game that lets you do whatever you want. You don't fight wars in GTA and you don't do whatever you want in CoD. That's just putting it as simply as possible, there are far more differences than just those. Sure, you can kill people in both, but that's where the similarity ends. That's like saying Splinter Cell and Assassin's Creed only have minor differences, when in reality they're completely different.

you fight wars in GTA.. when you get to your 5-6 stars the army tries to get you. And I seen people act like idiots doing whatever they wanted in Call of Duty. In Story you can't do whatever you want in COD, nor in GTA can you do whatever you want in Story. If you try to do whatever you want, you fail the mission in both.

 

[Iridium Winter]

you fight wars in GTA.. when you get to your 5-6 stars the army tries to get you. And I seen people act like idiots doing whatever they wanted in Call of Duty. In Story you can't do whatever you want in COD, nor in GTA can you do whatever you want in Story. If you try to do whatever you want, you fail the mission in both.

An army against one person isn't a war. And the point of doing whatever you want stands because it's still an open world game and in CoD, sure, you can goof off, but you're confined to infantry combat outside of a couple of killstreaks, can't leave the immediate area and have a set objective the whole time

 

[-_Roberto_-]

An army against one person isn't a war. And the point of doing whatever you want stands because it's still an open world game and in CoD, sure, you can goof off, but you're confined to infantry combat outside of a couple of killstreaks, can't leave the immediate area and have a set objective the whole time

Well in GTA you can't leave Liberty City, can you?

 

[Iridium Winter]

Well in GTA you can't leave Liberty City, can you?

Liberty City is a big area that's kilometers wide. Call of Duty confines you to an area the size of a couple of soccer fields.