Panic over: We're getting Call of Duty

1996 RED/BLUE
1997
1998 Yellow
1999 GOLD/SILVER
2000 Crystal
2001
2002 RUBY/SAPPHIRE
2003
2004 FireRed/LeafGreen
2005
2006 Diamond/Pearl
2007
2008 Platinum
2009 HeartGold/SoulSilver
2010 Black/White
2011
2012 Black 2/White 2
2013 X/Y

So 12 Core games in 17 Years. Call of Duty 10 core games in 10 years. I would agree Pokemon is a a bit light on the story side.

andyman949 wrote:

I'd struggle to call a game that only missed 1 year in the last 5 biannual. It still follows the same quirks of being a reskin of the previous game with some new numbers being crunched, except it has little to no story. At least CoD has throwaway fun stories (sometimes pretty good too e.g MW2)

I saw no difference between MW2 and MW3, and from what I've seen, Ghosts is essentially the same as the last Infinity Ward effort. I think Treyarch are doing well with the series - Black Ops was fun, if a little samey and Black Ops 2 actually pushed the CoD formula forward for the first time since MW2.

I dunno, if you look at the online modes they're improved upon year after year. I agree that Treyarch are doing a much better job of pushing the series forward but at least on the multiplayer front MW3 pushed forwards with the inclusion of the survival mode (way better than bloody Zombies) as well as the party modes from Black Ops and the rather good Kill Confirmed mode.

As far as your comment goes Mas, CoD is 9 in 9 or 10 in 11 as there was a years gap after the first. Regardless it doesn't change the fact that there's still about as much change as a CoD game. The hardcore will notice the changes, the rest will happily muddle through the game spotting the new pokemon and not noticing much change otherwise.

masofdas wrote:

12 isn't bad 18 isn't that more it's not like battlefield 4 were it's 24 on current and 64 on next gen that's a huge difference.

Man, I would hate that! Even in a12-man game I struggle to feel like I'm contributing sometimes.

I hate big team games. It's rare to be alive longer than a minute unless you're away in some dusty corner of the map twiddling your fingers on a sniper rifle.

On battlefield big teams work as you have your squads which you work together to then help team overall. COD with 18 players free for all would be great, more to shoot.

64 is a ridiculous number though. I can see the merit on having 24 players on a big enough map (BF1943 was a great laugh on XBLA) but 64 is just too many in my eyes.

One soldier would be too many in my eyes. But I didn't even like contact lenses.

I think it's always been that size on PC, and it's called battlefield not close combat shooter.

Buskalilly wrote:

One soldier would be too many in my eyes. But I didn't even like contact lenses.

I usually reserve this for Balla, but...

I remember when Resistance 2 did 64 players online, that wasn't great, I also remember when MAG did 128 players online, that wasn't great.

PC gamers haven't ever moaned about it, so don't know I'll have to wait and see but as I'm not getting battlefield 4 on PS4 in till after I'm bored with COD &/ Killzone. I like FPS genre but I don't need 3 of them in one go.

(only watch this if you aren't bothered about the end story of Ghosts, though it is pretty funny)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E82ZkHTiVU

That's from the 1st mission of Ghosts by the video description, does spoil MW2 though if you watch it. Apparently it's suppose to pay homage to Simon 'Ghost' Riley (name of the dog in ghosts) of MW2.

 

What I do.

Nothing that was in response to my mistake.

The_Jaster wrote:

(only watch this if you aren't bothered about the end story of Ghosts, though it is pretty funny)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5E82ZkHTiVU

Fuck me, that's awful! What with Arkham Origins rehashing bits of Arkham City's map and now this, I hope we aren't seeing a worrying new gaming trend develop.

Also I'm hearing it's a bit of a joke to people that say COD is the same every year, so they made the bit the same.

That screams of base covering to me. It just comes off as lazy and uninspired.

"Awarded for most bushes cut and pots smashed"

masofdas wrote:

1996 RED/BLUE
1997
1998 Yellow
1999 GOLD/SILVER
2000 Crystal
2001
2002 RUBY/SAPPHIRE
2003
2004 FireRed/LeafGreen
2005
2006 Diamond/Pearl
2007
2008 Platinum
2009 HeartGold/SoulSilver
2010 Black/White
2011
2012 Black 2/White 2
2013 X/Y

So 12 Core games in 17 Years. Call of Duty 10 core games in 10 years. I would agree Pokemon is a a bit light on the story side.

Yellow, Crystal and Platinum certainly shouldn't be considered as core games, but upgraded versions of the core games, and FireRed/LeafGreen HeartGold/SoulSilver were remakes (though I'd count those as core games myself since they were substantial), so I'd really say there's been 9 games in 17 years, counting Black and White 2 as a new set of core games too.

Though if I wanted to strengthen your argument (I don't) you forgot Pokemon Emerald in 2005, and for Japan, there was Pokemon Red/Green, followed by Blue, followed by Yellow.

We moved on from that Fronk me & Andy all ways disagree and I actually like COD not huge amounts like some but enough to buy every year since COD2 on the 360 at launch. But some times I think he's wrong hence why I disagreed about Pokemon but I think we tend to agree to disagree.

Went to see Buska last night, did go out late and had a few drinks.

Reason so late as we played some of this online, I don't like most of the new maps I played a there two big might be okay with 18 players but not 12 also more snipers and campers in these bigger maps.

I started of sucking but eventually got into the grove again with the Pro U controller (what a great controller) and actually passed Buska in rank. After playing I would say it's more of the same, it's fun but that's about it this is the fast food of the gaming world.

Also kinda wished I got on Wii U then traded it towards the PS4 version especially knowing some of the PS4 deals GAME are doing .

I was just playing badly deliberately to make you feel good about yourself...