JayWood2010 said:
Gamer_of_the_Year said:
JayWood2010 said:
Gamer_of_the_Year said:
JayWood2010 said:
Gamer_of_the_Year said:
JayWood2010 said:
-Newcloud- said:
Yet the new call of duty will be praised for have the same solid gameplay it's had since COD4. |
Wrong. this is a myth and an exageration by this point in the generation.
Call of Duty 4 - 92 metacritic
Blackops II - 83 metacritic
Don't mistake popularity for critics over hyping it. CoD4 and MW2 was original and deserved the scores it got. They have declined since due to stale gameplay.
|
God of War: Ascension> Black Ops II
in fact.
God of War: Ascension>Modern Warfare 3
Either way, anyone who bashes God of War Ascension when it has the best gameplay the series has ever seen, then turns around and gives the stale, innovation-less series COD anything above a 70 can't be trusted.
|
You are acting like this is a fact. I like how you are comparing your opinion with facts though. I also like how you are comparing two completely different genres. I could easily go out and talk to the 20 million people who own the game and Im sure a lot of them would disagree with you. Not sure why you are in here bashing CoD in the first place. If you dont like it so be it, but this isnt the place for the discussion
I simply showed you proof that you was wrong. God of War is being played out just like call of duty. We have had how many god of war games in just the last 5 years? Just like CoD people are getting played out on it.
|
No, it's a fact that CoD ceased to innovate its gameplay in any kind of significant or creative way since the original Modern Warfare. It is a glorified map update that people adore because of the multiplayer. Nothing more, nothing less. It's also a fact that activision hasn't given ANY thought or care whatsover to the campaign in years. I remember a few of the campaigns being 5-6 hours long lol. Really?! For a $60 retail game? A 6 hour campaign? Unacceptable.
So, know, you didn't prove me wrong in any way. Because Modern Warfare 3 and original Black Ops got glowing reviews and they were stale as ever. God of War is actually innovating and adding new elements to its experience each expansion (including a great multiplayer this year). Those are some more FACTS. And millions of pre-teens love Justin Beiber. Doesn't make his music and his appeal any less saccherine and lame. Popularity does not equal quality. I could care less if you find 10 million idiots who don't mind harking 60 bucks up a year for a map pack expansion for multiplayer.
What's the storyline in Call of Duty again? Don't worry, I'll wait.
|
Yes let's compare games to the music industry where you are forced to listened to mainstream via radio.
God of War is also a mainstram video game ;)
Anyways you are still basing things around your opinion rather than looking at the whole picture. And to think reviewers are reviewing call of duty only on its single player is laughable. It is being reviewed not only by its single player but its addicting multiplayer that for whatever reason people still can not top besides other games that are on the same standards like Halo and Battlefield. When you think of the best FPS games Halo, CoD, Battlefield will be in almost every discussion. However CoD has steadily been getting lower reviews due to stale gameplay which ive mentioned before. Still the game is addicting and it is why people keep flocking to stores buying it. God of War is also the top of it's class in hack n slash so dont read that wrong.
God of War has had 4 games in 5 years yet you somehow think that is better? not only is the gameplay getting stale by this point but it doesnt have an addicting multiplayer like CoD to fall back on. Then there is the story which from reviews and even users has said it is significantly worst than previous god of war games.
This by no means says that the gameplay is worst, but there is flaws in the game. Im going to use Halo 4 as an example. Most people will say technically that Halo 4 is better than halo 1 but it has lower reviews. Why because it is no longer original. Same thing goes to gears of war and Killzone. Without innovation these games will not recieve a higher score.
You like God of War Ascension and that is great that you do but dont bash other people for having a different opinion than you or liking a different game.
|
No review of a video game should start with multiplayer. If Call of Duty wants to really just become a multiplayer game then release one big ass game PC style and send in patches every year. They release a $60 retail game EVERY. FREAKING. YEAR. For any reviewer not taking that into consideration when reviewing CoD really shouldn't have a job reviewing video games. Ignoring campaigns is a bad precendent to set in gaming. Online experience is secondary, alternative FEATURE. Not the main attraction. Again, if CoD's business model was just for multiplayer it doesn't require a new disc every year to do that.
Furthermore, I'm not bashing other people (or rather critics) for liking CoD. I'm pointing out the absolutely GLARING hypocrcisy involved in their chastisement of one title to another. You can't claim GoW:A is "more of the same" (because its not. I mean, it's really, really not.) and mark that as a negative and then turn around and give Call of Duty a higher score (because EVERYONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND KNOWS COD IS ALWAYS MORE OF THE SAME AND NOTHING MORE! lol). It makes you not only a hypocrite. But a horrible "journalist". Take a look at the websites who scored God of War Under an 80 or better yet even under an 85. And see what they gave CoD. It's higher in 90% of the reviews.
Gaming "journalism" is a cess pool. And it has to stop. Stop defending malpractice.
|
As I said before the reviews has been steadily dcling for call of duy. You also are still basing your statements around opinions like single player over multiplayer which is simply not true. Some games are more focused on multiplayer than single player. For example World of Warcraft, counterstrike, unreal tournament, battlefield etc. Call of Duty has single player but it is not the main attraction and you are very aware of that. It just sounds like to me that you dont care for multiplayer and have the mentality that they should review things according to what you like most.
Anyways I'm not going to argue this anymore. I was just showing you that CoD scores has been getting lower and now this is a CoD vs GoW competition which will all come down to opinion based on genre and single player vs multiplayer
|
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about dude. Please, stop. If you continue to utter asinine nonsense I will just cease communication with you. World of Warcraft is a frickin' MMO. OF COURSE ITS FOCUSING ON MULTIPLAYER. What the hell are you talking about? Is Call of Duty an MMO? Um, no. It's a paid MMO? Um, no. Blizzard's business model and release schedule reflects that games MMO roots. I don't have a problem with Blizzard. Activision's Call of Duty however is touting itself a NEW GAMES EVERY YEAR with different subtitled names like (Modern Warfare and Black Ops) which is the same damn package just worded different. Call of Duty isn't an MMO. And if it wants to be and it takes o the World of Warcraft business model you won't see me criticize. You can't piss on my head and tell me it's raining dude. I'm not some easily influenced idiot. Or some pre-teen whose parents buy all his games for him. I'm a conscious consumer. Aware of what's being advertised and served to me. Call of Duty touts itself as a retail game, with a campaign experience worthy of 60 bucks. And it's not. If it wants to be an MMO, then you call Activision and tell them to announce that they will only release a Call of Duty every 2 or 3 years and support it with patches. Until then, screw you and Activision for selling half baked products lol
