By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
wholikeswood on 30 December 2009
Edit Thread
Squilliam said:
wholikeswood said:

Treyarch's mediocre COD3 is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things, because you're overlooking the enormous critical success Infinity Ward enjoyed with the franchise before the first Modern Warfare. Call of Duty on PC has 91 Meta and earned a GOTY release shortly afterwards, whilst Call of Duty 2 was one of the 360's first AAA titles, sitting at 89 Meta, and was the first 360 game to sell over a million in the US. From the latter example here, it was always clear that the Call of Duty franchise was going to be a big one for the HD consoles this generation.

"whilst it can make the critics wet with excitement... It doesn't translate that success to widespread appeal"

Are you even reading back what you're writing? I'm surprised that someone who's been on this site for quite some considerable time is struggling to discern quality from sales. You can't apply the correlation between the two everywhere. Why you continue to put forward this flawed "quality = sales" analysis is genuinely beyond me. Yes, Modern Warfare's gameplay quality contributes heavily to its sustained high levels of sales, but that doesn't mean you can flip the coin and say that Killzone 2's weaker sales must indicate weaker gameplay.

Call of Duty on PC and Call of Duty on 360 have little to do with how Call of Duty 4 then 5 then 6 performed on PS3. Was it always clear that Call of Duty would clear 5M 3 times on the 360 and at least once on the PS3? Call of Duty 4 was in a similar position to Killzone 2 at one point in its life.

Gameplay means the quality of the experience really. Killzone 2 cannot compete with the call of duty series on local play or cooperative play because it has none. Its also proved fact that games which target 60FPS get better sales once they get into peoples hands. The only 60FPS major Xbox Arcade title is Trials HD and it has a best in class translation of demo sales to purchases. Sega Arcade cabinet games are all 60FPS because they found that it earns them more money than 30FPS and better graphics. Again Call of Duty sold best once it got into peoples hands and proved its worth so they told their friends about it and 60FPS is a key reason for this. Killzone 2 sacrafices the quality of gameplay and a not so steady 30FPS with higher latency for better visuals.

Do you think its a coincidence that the best two selling FPS series on HD consoles have the lowest latency, amongst the smoothest of controls and get basic gameplay mechanics right? That they both include local and online multiplayer? The reason why I use review scores and sales to indicate the qualities of a game is because there are many things which an expert reviewer will overlook because of their extensive gameplay experience that a casual player will not! Even if the difference between Killzone 2 and MW 1 + 2 is simply that the latter are easier to play than the former then the latter has better gameplay. 

 

COD2 on 360 managed 2.5mil sales, despite releasing to a tiny userbase. Argue that it came out not long after the 360's launch and as such had little competition all you like, but if you look at its sales curve you'll see that it sold steadily rather than launching high and tailing off fast, so it's irrefutable that word of mouth began passing around and that the series had thus forged a fanbase on the HD console.

As for your 60fps argument, I'm just going to giggle and shake my head. Picture someone telling their friend at college that they should play such and such a game because its framerate is locked in at a solid 60fps. Actually don't bother, because it doesn't ever happen in real life. Call of Duty is simply mainstream in appeal and accessible in difficulty to even the most casual gamer. End of.

"Even if the difference between Killzone 2 and MW 1 + 2 is simply that the latter are easier to play than the former then the latter has better gameplay."

An incredibly ignorant statement, yet again. You've wasted breath in this thread by toeing the "sales = quality" line, and now you're going to peddle this "accessibility = quality" theory? Beyond risible.