By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Call of Duty Black Ops IIII Development Is A Disaster

Battle Royale rumours, MP being not CoD MP rumours.... this isn't sounding great.

The reason i didn't buy FF15 was because SquEnix were trying to 'update' their gameplay to match other popular titles, more action style. If CoD is doing the same, just copying trends and fads instead of keeping their style then that's not why I like the game, so I won't be getting it.

Why don't game companies know that what people like about game series is that games gameplay style, not another games?



Hmm, pie.

Around the Network

it will sell the same nonetheless.

I do not have much faith in people choice.



Switch!!!

shikamaru317 said:
Wow, it sounds like a total clusterf*ck. How could Treyarch/Activision have possibly thought that another future game with advanced movement was a good idea after people hated Black Ops 3 and Infinite Warfare? Reading this it sounds like they kept making the futuristic Black Ops 4 even after IW flopped, why would they not just have scrapped their 1 year of work on Black Ops 4 and rushed to get a modern setting game out in the remaining 2 years? Or just delay it till 2019 and release MW2 Remaster WITH multiplayer this year instead?

That's the problem with this franchise ... delay is not an option.  



as someone who has bought the game every year, played single player. dabbled in multiplayer and then return to beat the campaign on veteran, and if I liked it enough I would buy it for my other console and play through it again. Welp, not anymore.

Lack Ops IIII will be the first year I do not by it at all, even on sale.

The sad thing is, if Battlefield wanted to get rid of single player campaign, i wouldnt even care... but CoD, they can eat a bag of dicks.



 

Snoopy said:
jason1637 said:

Thats stll quite a bit of players that enjoy or play the campaign. The majority kf CoD players play the campaign. 

1. Pressing the start button hardly counts as playing

2. 22% of those players who finished the game probably did it for achievements, but still play cod online mostly.

3. Cost of making COD campaign probably cost way too much money and not many people even finished it.

1. That 50.4% finished the first mission so they didnt just press start on it.

2. Most single player games average like 30% completetion and since CoD is multiplayer focus and has 222% completetion thats actually not bad. Also WW2 has a total of 25m players so a little bit more than 12.5m played the campaign and 5.5m finished it. Thats a large number to make the campaign worth it. Most single player only games dont even reach 5.5 or 12.5m in sales.

3. For Bo4 they already started the campaign but stopped it because they did not have enough time to finish it.



Around the Network
Veknoid_Outcast said:
ArchangelMadzz said:
Treyarch are the only ones that can make a decent COD at the moment, so I'm hopeful. I've missed playing a good COD. Skipped so many years recently.

If you’ve been skipping them how do you know they haven’t been decent?

I got ghosts on the cheap second hand and played for a week and sold it, same with WW2 except it took almost a month.

BO3 was great, played that game throughout the year. Advanced warfare was good for 2 months until all the issues became known and I couldn't stand playing it anymore. And I completely skipped and didn't buy Infinite Warfare, but from what I've seen of it it was terrible. 

At this point I can tell whether I'd like a COD or not without playing it. 



PS4(PS5 Soon)and PC gaming

There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

jason1637 said:
Snoopy said:

1. Pressing the start button hardly counts as playing

2. 22% of those players who finished the game probably did it for achievements, but still play cod online mostly.

3. Cost of making COD campaign probably cost way too much money and not many people even finished it.

1. That 50.4% finished the first mission so they didnt just press start on it.

2. Most single player games average like 30% completetion and since CoD is multiplayer focus and has 222% completetion thats actually not bad. Also WW2 has a total of 25m players so a little bit more than 12.5m played the campaign and 5.5m finished it. Thats a large number to make the campaign worth it. Most single player only games dont even reach 5.5 or 12.5m in sales.

3. For Bo4 they already started the campaign but stopped it because they did not have enough time to finish it.

1. Cool, 50% people followed an AI soldier and watched a few cutscenes. Great!

2. 22% is less than 30% by quite a lot. Especially since COD campaigns are short.

3. They should have never continued it and should go all out on multiplayer. They probably didn't even get halfway through and realize campaigns are worthless for COD.



VGPolyglot said:

I still can't get over the fact that it is called IIII instead of IV or 4!

Yep, perhaps they don't know their Roman numerals. IIII is not a number, it's just four lines...



Dante9 said:
VGPolyglot said:

I still can't get over the fact that it is called IIII instead of IV or 4!

Yep, perhaps they don't know their Roman numerals. IIII is not a number, it's just four lines...

I think it has to deal with the typical prison trope where you count your days with lines on the wall.



Snoopy said:
jason1637 said:

For WW2 50.4% started the campaign and 22.3% beat the campaign.

Not good numbers at all

...That's millions of gamers.

If the campaign is fun, people will play it.

ArchangelMadzz said:

I got ghosts on the cheap second hand and played for a week and sold it, same with WW2 except it took almost a month.

BO3 was great, played that game throughout the year. Advanced warfare was good for 2 months until all the issues became known and I couldn't stand playing it anymore. And I completely skipped and didn't buy Infinite Warfare, but from what I've seen of it it was terrible. 

At this point I can tell whether I'd like a COD or not without playing it. 

Ghosts was the last CoD Campaign I actually completed. Holy crap were the visuals bad.
The story was just the same tired rehashed rubbish too.

World at War was a ball of fun back in the day.

Only Call of Duty game I haven't gotten is World War 2, I buy the games for the off chance I might play the campaign when I have time/bored and to keep my game library consistent and complete.

If the titles shift to Multiplayer-only, then I won't be purchasing them anymore, I'll make the clean break.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--