The last few days I've been playing in the open beta for Battlefield 4 and I have to be honest: it has just reinforced my hunch that BF4 is really just going to be BF3.5. It is not really impressing me. Don't get me wrong, I know it is only a matter of time until I eventually do buy it because I love the series, but I think this might play out like BF3 where I waited quite a bit (two map packs IIRC) before jumping in. DICE has made some nice tweaks, but that is really all I am seeing: tweaks to the basic formula. Really, the only change that has me excited is the addition of PLA troops - at last I can get away from fighting Russians all the time! :D
Anyway, the reason why I bring this up in a CoD: Ghosts thread is because even though people constantly bash CoD for being "more of the same", I have always thought that the fellas over at IW and Treyarch always come up with some very clever innovations to the core gameplay that gives people a reason to buy the newest iteration (which explains why every entry to franchise breaks a new record - no, it is not because CoD players are lemmings ;D). Case in point: what IW is doing with CoD: Ghosts. Check this out: It seems IW is doing something I have heard a lot of shooter fans ask for over the years (ironically, a lot from the Battlefield community): give us the ability to play with smart bots. Well, IW is doing just that with the new "Squads" mode involving AI/human & SP/MP hybrid modes:
QuoteSquads
Build your team and take up to 6 of them into battle in the all new Squads mode. This mode takes the best parts of the multiplayer experience and allows you to play either solo or cooperatively with the custom soldiers created and leveled up in multiplayer.
The load-out choices you make for your Squad members will directly change the AI behavior of your squad-mates. Give your soldier a sniper rifle and he'll behave like a sniper, and an SMG guy will be more run and gun.
Vid:
I think this is a really,
really smart idea. Not only does it answer a long standing demand of the shooter community, but I think it could go a long way in bringing back casual shooter fans who are often intimidated by CoD's ruthless MP community. And I really like the "tower defense" (if you will) idea of being able to set up a AI squad and allowing it to fight on its own against other players for points.
Then I went to the Steam page and saw that IW is also adding some features which seem to make it inch a bit closer to the Battlefield experience (ironically, Battlefield seems to be inching closer to CoD! :D ):
QuoteNew dynamic maps are the evolution of multiplayer. They include interactive elements and player triggered events that make the environment evolve as each match goes on. The entire landscape can shift and force players to change tactics and strategies.
Call of Duty: Ghosts introduces new tactical player movements. The new contextual lean system now allows players to lean around obstacles without adding button combinations or fully leaving cover. The new mantling system allows fluid movement over objects, while maintaining momentum. The knee slide allows for a natural transition from sprinting crouching to prone.
Say what you want, but I think Ghosts already has more innovation than anything I've seen come out of DICE since BC2.
I am curious: do you think this stuff will be enough to bring back anyone who has given up on the CoD franchise? I have to admit: when CoD Ghosts was announced, I wasn't interested at all. But now I think I am more excited for this game than BF4!
EDIT: found a Squads trailer:
I basically gave up after COD 4 one because the cost went up too much in my opinion and 2 because they took the servers away from the clans and match play was never the same in my eyes.
Which reminds me, I haven't played MW3, and all the Black Ops titles.
Not enough to pull me back.
CoD always plays on the safe side, so for me each new CoD is just an update of the last CoD. Some new additions here and there (like the emblem editor in Black Ops), or the refined Killstreak and Perk system, but nothing too revolutionary. Vehicles in World at War where a nice try, but it didn't work, so they patched the vehicles out of the game even during the life cycle of that CoD incarnation.
My impression is that they will abstain from revolutionary changes because they simply don't want to alienate their fan base. This doesn't mean that they won't hype each new CoD in advance by detailing the vast amount of innovation and new features, as they always do.
So if you like the CoD concept, you can blind-buy each new title - for me, it always feels like an map update with some new features. Which is okay. I know what to expect and I will get it. I would never buy a new CoD title because I want to be surprised with fresh ideas. Wrong franchise for that.
I'm not a die-hard CoD-only player (far from that), but I enjoy playing CoD because I always get what I expect. When I buy a new CoD, I can simply pick up the controller and continue playing. In addition, it's one of the most easiest and quickest games to play together with friends if you only have a few minutes left after a long work day. I don't want or need anything complicated in this franchise.
It was only a matter of time when they would include a character editor (in BOII, characters looked too generic and it was sometimes ridiculous to see the same bald-headed guy 5 times in the opposing team). Rainbow Six allowed this years ago and I'm not surprised that it will be included into Ghosts now. In fact we speculated about this feature when we started playing BOII.
For the squad system, certainly an interesting idea, but I don't expect too much practical impact or change to gameplay (the same was true for the hyped "League features" of BOII which proved to be absolutely uninteresting and superfluous).
Regarding your question whether CoD will bring people back to the franchise? I don't see where people left the franchise in the first place. Each CoD sells better than its predecessor.
This year is the first time I won't buy it at launch, just because I will be waiting for the next gen version because I want to see the technical differences (and I won't buy a next gen console before 2014). Same will be true for Battlefield 4, I just played the Beta on XBox 360 which looks underwhelming, so I will give it a try in the next-gen version.
While I am no fan of the more individually oriented CoD multiplayer gameplay, I want to comment on BF4.
I too am playing the Beta and I agree it's nothing revolutionary for the series, but it IS evolutionary. BF4 seems like its what fans wanted BF3 to be after the long long wait after BF2.
In BF4 we get Commander mode back. We evolve to 5 man squads, which -for my group- is a Godsend! We were often with 5 guys online and had to split up squads. No more of that.
So the way I see things with BF4 is that its more a quality of life update than a revolutionary new game. It's BF afterall and it already is unique in what it does compared to many other shooters. Don't change a winning formula I would say.
I am having a blast in the new beta and I am very much looking forward to the full release!
If you ever spot the [DiNO] tag, its me and my buddies. Say hi when you do!
Why bother with COD with BF on the market. At least BF promotes teamwork and seems the more tactical based of the two. BF can do all that COD does plus you get vehicles and combined arms.
Well, I have been in CoD games where players were much more team players than in a BF game where everybody was running around for himself...it depends on the players, not the game...
True, but CoD as a general rule has a lot less team oriented players running about. Which is logical because the gameplay promotes personal gain more than teamplay in relation to BF4.
But you touch upon a great point; if you are on a server with Rambos on your side in BF4 against a side where even only one or two squads work together efficiently, the round is going to be a frustrating experience for you.
The game is pretty punishing in that regards.
Same is true for CoD, if you have to face a real team while you are in a mob of lone wolves you gonna lose no matter how good you are as a single player.
Granted I am not familiar with the latest offerings of CoD, but that used to be only true for certain gameplay modes.
But if you say they have a similar approach nowadays I will be the last to believe you.
Then it pretty much comes down to wether you like huge maps with vehicles and aircraft or not. :)
Quote from: Yskonyn on October 08, 2013, 07:40:15 AM
...huge maps with vehicles and aircraft ....
Hmmmm...Planetside 2
Yes but that's sci-fi stuff. We're comparing modern warfare or perhaps slightly modern-ish. :)
i would go with ARMA anyday.
Speaking of rambo in BF. I go rambo a lot because my teammates just sit in a place, bunch up and not capture.
I also do that in Red Orchestra / Rising Storm. As squad leader. A rambo deep inside enemy lines is useful because he becomes a valuable spawn point. that said, conquest maps need brave men to move forward and win.
Non conquest maps are just about sitting in a place, and killing people. Best chances of success when you work in groups
Glad I waited on this one, too:
Call of Duty: Ghosts Lowest Rated COD Game of Generation (http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/18520/article/call-of-duty-ghosts-lowest-rated-cod-game-of-generation/)
I waited because even though IW said that this entry to the franchise was going to cater to the PC crowd now that the next-gens and PCs are relatively close in hardware, it became apparent that this was just rhetoric. I mean, no FOV slider?!? That is what killed it for me. Hopefully they will patch it in later. Until they do....
But even besides the FOV issue, I smelled a rat with this game. Usually Activision does a TV ad blitz leading up to a new CoD, but this entry was, relatively speaking, quietly slipped out the back door. The pre-release hype was almost non-existent. I suspected something was wrong.
I swear: Rome 2, Battlefield 4, CoD Ghosts - it appears all the major studios have fired their QA people and are just releasing buggy, cheaply made stuff. :( What a sad state of affairs.
I've been saving a few bucks for a new shooter, but seeing how both BF4 and Ghosts are now suffering from mediocre launches, I think I will finally jump on Borderlands 2 GotY Edition. I loved the original and heard nothing but good things from the sequel. It will be nice to play a SP game again, too. :)
^I don't know, I've seen a few Ghosts commercials on during football games here in the US.
And I have only dabbled in CoD games on and off, not a real hardcore fan. I liked what I read about and saw.
The price of 59.99 is too steep for me for a shooter though.
Quote from: Gusington on November 05, 2013, 08:14:40 PM
^I don't know, I've seen a few Ghosts commercials on during football games here in the US.
I saw maybe three ad for Ghosts in the past three weeks (I'm in NY). With previous releases, such as BlOps 2, I couldn't get away from the ads, particularly on Spike, USA, and Adult Swim. This time almost nada. But, then again, my TV time is also at a all time low. ;D
QuoteAnd I have only dabbled in CoD games on and off, not a real hardcore fan. I liked what I read about and saw.
Not hardcore either. I just find them real fun, particularly because of the short match times.
QuoteThe price of 59.99 is too steep for me for a shooter though.
I am starting to feel that way with most games. Since Steam spoiled me with their mega-sales, I am finding it harder and harder to pay $60 for anything (and I am still kicking myself for spending $60 on Rome 2 ::) ).
Borderlands 2 GotY is $60 too, but GameFly sent me a coupon for 25% off a Steam key, so it would only be $45. I can live with that seeing all the DLC you get with it. 8)
BF4 is is the better game so far in my opinion....at least from the SP perspective. The first 10 minutes of COD were really impressive, but it has been totally downhill since. Very disappointed.
I hope the developers die in a cancer fire. Shame on them.
Damn, I really like the premise of this game.
I believe I'll just hold out a bit, you know? 8)
Quote from: Toonces on November 05, 2013, 09:54:25 PM
Damn, I really like the premise of this game.
I believe I'll just hold out a bit, you know? 8)
The space mission was really cool, and it was the trailer and screenshots that got me to make the purchase. Unfortunately, the mission only lasts 2 minutes and the rest of the campaign so far has totally sucked. I hate COD. They really screwed up a great franchise.
Space mission...sounds very interesting. Too bad it's 2 minutes.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 05, 2013, 09:52:02 PM
BF4 is is the better game so far in my opinion....at least from the SP perspective. The first 10 minutes of COD were really impressive, but it has been totally downhill since. Very disappointed.
I hope the developers die in a cancer fire. Shame on them.
Some irony there given that BF franchise has always been MP focused. Campaign must be really bad for you guys.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 05, 2013, 09:52:02 PM
BF4 is is the better game so far in my opinion....at least from the SP perspective. The first 10 minutes of COD were really impressive, but it has been totally downhill since. Very disappointed.
I hope the developers die in a cancer fire. Shame on them.
Wow, that bad, huh? Well, that was $60 I saved.
What is going on with our beloved hobby.... :'(
Lol, if you find the BF4 campaign better than the new CoD one then I have no doubt in my mind the CoD must be utter crap, cause I think the BF4 one is too.
The campaign in BF4 tries to tell a cool story, but it fails in keeping things coherent. It feels like the action scene directors had all kinds of cool ideas (which most scenes are, in fact), but they were also tasked with writing the story instead of an author.
The campaign jumps to and fro, never really explaining in a good way why anything happens now, here or anyway?
I hate the campaign. It's a collection of scenes. Not a story.
I have no urge to try the new CoD at all. SP was the only thing I would try the game for because in the past the SP campaigns in that franchise have been pretty strong.
Calling the CoD one now worse then BF4 makes my eyebrows rise. :D
The release of BF4 is nowhere near as rocky as the internet makes you believe. Indeed, there is an annoying sound issue, server instability was an issue and client crashes are fairly common. The servers have become much more stable as we speak (in fact, since yersterday afternoon GMT I havent had connectivity issues anymore at all) and the game is certainly playable and when it works it works well and is the tried and true BF awesomeness. Not cheap at all.
BF3 had similar growing pains. It'll be sorted soon and the whining disapears as quickly as it came.
Yes...by saying BF4 has a better SP campaign, please don't misconstrue my message to mean that the BF4 campaign is good. It definitely sucks too. But the SP action is better in BF than it is in COD.
I wouldn't even play the bf4 sp campaign, but you get a couple decent guns to use in MP for completing it. I'm running through it on easy to unlock them, something to to do on my lunch hour at work.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on November 06, 2013, 05:29:17 AM
Yes...by saying BF4 has a better SP campaign, please don't misconstrue my message to mean that the BF4 campaign is good. It definitely sucks too. But the SP action is better in BF than it is in COD.
Are either of the MP games in either BF4 or COD Ghosts worth getting for a team server?
^ BF 4 MP rocks, it's definitely the better game. It has COD style game modes like domination or TDM. It has different modes like Rush or Obliteration that COD doesn't have. Lets not forget the main franchise mode of conquest or large conquest with all kinds of combined arms vehicles to use. With BF4 on the market, you really have to be an fps fan or COD fan to play Ghosts. If you were thinking of setting up a grogheads BF4 server, I would play on it....you could even make it a hardcore server if you feel BF4 is too much run and gun.
Quote from: Skoop on November 07, 2013, 04:18:42 PM
you could even make it a hardcore server if you feel BF4 is too much run and gun.
That would be a given 8)