Well I don't like the switch to so less SP and so much MP, I find online annoying due to well people
. The lack of team play and the verbal abuse is a joke at times. They are starting to milk the franchise a little too much for my liking.
Multiplayer Military Shooters
- Thread starter backstept
- Start date
Well I don't like the switch to so less SP and so much MP, I find online annoying due to well people
. The lack of team play and the verbal abuse is a joke at times. They are starting to milk the franchise a little too much for my liking.
But that's a ridiculous reason to release a new game every year. It would be easy to just release an update every season to compensate for any changes in teams, and release a new game, say, every 2-3 years. But, of course, that wouldn't make EA as much money as selling a few million copies of a new game every 12 months, yet they escape the accusations of milking their fanbase.
What's essentially being said here is that people are more than happy to shell out the price of a full game every year, just for the privilege of having up-to-date squads/drivers/whatever, but yet that's somehow more palletable to the whinging masses than a brand new game with a new story and, in the case of Black Ops, a re-vamped MP experience.
Graphically speaking, there isn't much difference in the last three Fifa games, and I know cause my housemate is obsessed with the game, and I see him play it every day, and even play it with him a few times a week. Sure, they add a few new skill moves, and maybe a few more managerial options, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of playing the game, on or offline, it's essentially the same game, which is what Activision get accused of doing with CoD. So how do EA get away with it, and Activision don't?
No game should be released yearly...NO GAME.
I don't see that it matters. As I said, if you enjoy playing a particular game, then buy it and enjoy it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Moaning about "franchise fatigue" or "milking the fans" is a pointless exercise, seeing as no-one is forced into buying the games, they do so because they want to.
Just because EA have added a few new IPs to their repertoire, doesn't change the fact that they still release a new version of their sports games every year, without people moaning about them fleecing the fans. Or at least not to the same degree that Activision are criticised.
so activision, just needs to release more games that dont sell well but cost a lot to develop. =P
seriously, CoD may come out every year, but as others have pointed out, it's cycling betwen developers. I havent worked on a sports game, but it takes a lot of time to get an action game right. and the CoDs are different enough that anyone who spends 5 minutes playing them should know that there are significant changes from year to year.
i am sure there are big changes in sports games too, but with a sports game you get to reuse most of your assets from year to year. players dont change radically, announcer VO doesnt change radically, arenas don't change radically...
i also think people tend to oversimplify making a good game. if it's soo easy to knock out a good CoD, why doesnt every developer do it? some try, but most tank. making a good AAA game is hard. doing it every year, or every other year is really hard. it's why there are so few big selling AAA games that come out every year.
that's not to say that a franchise can get run into the ground, look at Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk. stale. but then again trying to mix things up can result in pain (look at NBA elite).
if the games are genuinely good, who cares how often they come out? are people really complaining, "Man, i hate that there is a good game that comes out every year." if so, then don buy it at launch, wait a couple years, then buy it.
seriously, CoD may come out every year, but as others have pointed out, it's cycling betwen developers. I havent worked on a sports game, but it takes a lot of time to get an action game right. and the CoDs are different enough that anyone who spends 5 minutes playing them should know that there are significant changes from year to year.
i am sure there are big changes in sports games too, but with a sports game you get to reuse most of your assets from year to year. players dont change radically, announcer VO doesnt change radically, arenas don't change radically...
i also think people tend to oversimplify making a good game. if it's soo easy to knock out a good CoD, why doesnt every developer do it? some try, but most tank. making a good AAA game is hard. doing it every year, or every other year is really hard. it's why there are so few big selling AAA games that come out every year.
that's not to say that a franchise can get run into the ground, look at Guitar Hero and Tony Hawk. stale. but then again trying to mix things up can result in pain (look at NBA elite).
if the games are genuinely good, who cares how often they come out? are people really complaining, "Man, i hate that there is a good game that comes out every year." if so, then don buy it at launch, wait a couple years, then buy it.
I think you are forgetting how much criticism EA received. EA was hit just as hard, it's just that the roles are no longer the same. Activision is now the biggest developer out there, its no longer EA, and they're churning out games just like EA.No game should be released yearly...NO GAME.
I don't see that it matters. As I said, if you enjoy playing a particular game, then buy it and enjoy it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Moaning about "franchise fatigue" or "milking the fans" is a pointless exercise, seeing as no-one is forced into buying the games, they do so because they want to.
Just because EA have added a few new IPs to their repertoire, doesn't change the fact that they still release a new version of their sports games every year, without people moaning about them fleecing the fans. Or at least not to the same degree that Activision are criticised.
So people only attack whoever is the biggest developer at the time?
And what constitutes churning games out? Why shouldn't they release a new CoD every year? I know for a fact that I wouldn't want to play the same game for 2 or more years, and as I've said before, I'm usually getting bored of one game as the next one is being released. No-one is forcing people to buy the game, so if people don't like it, then vote with your wallet. As it stands, there are about 3 million people on CoD (on XBL, at least) who seem to think that a yearly CoD game is fine.
Oh, and darthraidr; great post, I agree with it completely.
Um, yeah, that plays a big part in it
Because they're pretty much repackaging the same stuff
And millions of people still buy Madden
If you wan't to keep feeding the machine then go forth, I won't stop calling it what it is though.
That's one of the stupidest, and most childish things I've ever heard.
So do EA with their sports games. As long as the experience is different enough, and people are getting their money's worth out of the game, who cares?
And millions of people still buy Madden
What, business? Shock, horror! People who are in business want to make money. Those bastards!
As long as they're not releasing an inferior product, what does it matter? And unless Activision send thugs to your house to beat your arse until you cough up for a new game, what does it matter to you?
I agree, but that's reality. Being the biggest developer out there, they are going to draw the most attention
So do EA with their sports games. As long as the experience is different enough, and people are getting their money's worth out of the game, who cares?[/quote] Its not different enough
lack of creativityWhat, business? Shock, horror! People who are in business want to make money. Those bastards!And millions of people still buy Madden
It matters to me because the end result is that people will try and release the next Call of Duty and I get fewer games that I want to play. If you go to Gametrailers and listen to some of Pachters comments, he does a pretty good job explaining it.
Why do people expect every single game to be breaking down boundaries, or re-inventing the wheel? It's a tried and tested FPS game. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I buy CoD every year because I like the campaigns, I like the multiplayer, and I know what I'm going to get for my money. I don't want them to fuck around with the format, or dick around with what already works just to please a vocal minority. If I want to play a different type of FPS, I'll do what I already do; play a different type of FPS, like Halo or Killzone.
How does Activision releasing CoD every year result in fewer games for you to play? Unless you're saying that Treyarch and IW (or Sledgehammer) working on CoD means that they don't have time to make games that you want. In which case I hope I'm just misunderstanding your post, cause that's pathetic.
I love shooters and plan to keep buying them as long as they make them. I dont even care about the story. They could make a game where all you do is move and shoot with no plot and I would still buy it.
lack of creativityWhat, business? Shock, horror! People who are in business want to make money. Those bastards!And millions of people still buy Madden
It matters to me because the end result is that people will try and release the next Call of Duty and I get fewer games that I want to play. If you go to Gametrailers and listen to some of Pachters comments, he does a pretty good job explaining it.
neither CoD nor Madden games being released really impact the development of other games from other developers.
for CoD, i wouldnt say those devs lack creativity. sure you can break the game down and make it sound uncreative, "it's just a military shooter." but any game can be given an overly simple label.
i want to say, "i'm sure at some point CoD will run it's course" but if things are planned out well enough, there is no reason it can't last for 20 years... look at madden.
sure people will complain about madden and the yearly releases. I suspect that the people that complain the most about yearly releases aren't buying the game anyways. and if the game came out once a generation, they still wouldnt purchase it.
again, in the end, gamers are being presented with a good game every year. i dont see the problem.
treyarch found a large number of COD: MW2 players were NOT playing online.
seriously, a metric fuck-ton of people bought it, played SP - maybe SO too - and NEVER ventured online ONCE.
the UT team found the same thing, UT2K4 was played off-line far more than online.
seriously, a metric fuck-ton of people bought it, played SP - maybe SO too - and NEVER ventured online ONCE.
the UT team found the same thing, UT2K4 was played off-line far more than online.
That's the whole reason behind Combat Training being introduced in Black Ops. They want to try and convince the people who never play online to give it a go, so they've given them a place to try it out or practice without being intimidated by an actual game filled with CoD veterans, calling them "fags" and "noobs".
It's still good fun to fuck around in with friends, and you can test out new guns/loadouts before you play for real, but the main idea is to attract new online players.
It's still good fun to fuck around in with friends, and you can test out new guns/loadouts before you play for real, but the main idea is to attract new online players.
To be fair, between CoD 1 and 2, there wasn't a new CoD released in 2004 (unless you count expansion packs, which aren't "new games", strictly speaking)
