Call of Duty now on a 3-studio rotation

brendanvb said:
It's not that I hate the franchise or wish it weren't successful, I'm just annoyed at how it's success has affected the entire gaming market which led to a very boring generation compared to the PS1/PS2 era's. There were a lot more unique and innovative titles back then.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't CoD then someone else would be the copy cat victim
 
brendanvb said:
It's not that I hate the franchise or wish it weren't successful, I'm just annoyed at how it's success has affected the entire gaming market which led to a very boring generation compared to the PS1/PS2 era's. There were a lot more unique and innovative titles back then.
Click to expand...

remember with the ps1 ps2 era's devs where making their own game engines, they tried various workarounds with the limitations of the systems ie. the fog in silent hill on the ps1 to mask the short draw distance etc. with these current generations games became too expensive to develop (thats why devs ae licencing engines instead these days) one failed game means do or die look at factor 5 who made a schittload of good star wars games on the gamecube and n64, the went on to make lair on the ps3 and it was bye bye factor 5, same with silicon knights etc. activision is playing it safe cod 4 did set a benchmark and all that treyarch and IW did was improve on it incrementally and stick to its winning formula playing it safe.
 
Dohc-WP said:
remember with the ps1 ps2 era's devs where making their own game engines, they tried various workarounds with the limitations of the systems ie. the fog in silent hill on the ps1 to mask the short draw distance etc. with these current generations games became too expensive to develop (thats why devs ae licencing engines instead these days) one failed game means do or die look at factor 5 who made a schittload of good star wars games on the gamecube and n64, the went on to make lair on the ps3 and it was bye bye factor 5, same with silicon knights etc. activision is playing it safe cod 4 did set a benchmark and all that treyarch and IW did was improve on it incrementally and stick to its winning formula playing it safe.
Click to expand...

Yeah I realise developing games is now a much bigger risk financially, and it's only going to get worse unfortunately as graphics improve. I'm just concerned that eventually all we'll have are COD clones.
 
I think the problem with COD is that it has resulted in many other publishers trying to copy it in the hopes that they'll be as successful. What this means is that other publishers are pushing for annual releases or trying to turn games into franchises. The big profits are to be found in playing it safe and churning out sequels as much as possible. Take EA for example with what they're doing to the BF series.

[Sorry, hadn't refreshed the page so I didn't see that this topic had already been covered.]
 
Hmmm, I actually think that a 3 year cycle can only lead to a better product overall. [I'm not going to harp about the usual CoD complaints; I'll stick to the actual content in context]. As it stand we can all agree that CoD has actually gotten quite a few things right. The 1st Modern Warfare redefined the modern FPS era; The 2nd one perfected it; and BLOPS 2 refined the formula. Now Ghosts proved that regardless of raking in a metric ton of money, the formula needs refinement. To their credit they tried a few new things and most of it didn't pan out. Now however that each studio will have effectively 3 years to work on a product instead of 2; it will allow them to actually use the time to bring their full ideas to fruition. We may even get to a stage where a new CoD is a welcome event rather than a cause of contention among the community.
 
brendanvb said:
Yeah I realise developing games is now a much bigger risk financially, and it's only going to get worse unfortunately as graphics improve. I'm just concerned that eventually all we'll have are COD clones.
Click to expand...

Well with the indie market this is not likely to happen in our lifetime.
 
brendanvb said:
It's not that I hate the franchise or wish it weren't successful, I'm just annoyed at how it's success has affected the entire gaming market which led to a very boring generation compared to the PS1/PS2 era's. There were a lot more unique and innovative titles back then.
Click to expand...

I'm honestly not sure how you're pinning market-wide stagnation on CoD here. That doesn't seem very reasonable to me. There are a lot more factors to the stagnation we've been experiencing than the success of a single game.

It would be like blaming Uwe Boll movies for other bad movies.
 
Clive Woofer said:
I'm honestly not sure how you're pinning market-wide stagnation on CoD here. That doesn't seem very reasonable to me. There are a lot more factors to the stagnation we've been experiencing than the success of a single game.

It would be like blaming Uwe Boll movies for other bad movies.
Click to expand...

I do feel like the franchise, not any single game of it, is mostly to blame. It's been mega-successful year after year (and yes, it is more the fault of gamers for continuing to purchase each annual release and accepting minimal innovation), and the influence it had over the PS3/Xbox 360's era of games is undeniable really. But that isn't the franchise's fault, nor the gamers, but the developers for mimicking the gameplay elements in an attempt to grab some of those sales instead of trying to innovate. And I do understand why, as I said earlier. Games are very expensive to develop. It's just kinda depressing.
 
I honestly don't care anymore.

No matter what we think, people will still go out and buy the new COD year after year.

It's like brainwashing, without anybody actually doing anything about it.
 
Having three years to develop the game should mean more innovation, that extra year should make all the difference.
 
XbatousaiX said:
Having three years to develop the game should mean more innovation, that extra year should make all the difference.
Click to expand...

Sadly I don't feel that will be the case. They need the extra development year now because PS4/Xbone's visuals take a lot more time to produce than last gen, so in order to keep up with their annual releases and the increase in development time, they've extended their development time and added on another studio. I'd love to be proven wrong though.
 
brendanvb said:
Sadly I don't feel that will be the case. They need the extra development year now because PS4/Xbone's visuals take a lot more time to produce than last gen, so in order to keep up with their annual releases and the increase in development time, they've extended their development time and added on another studio. I'd love to be proven wrong though.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure this is the case, considering that developers are saying it's easier to develop for the PS4 and Xbox One than it is for the previous gen, mainly because of the architecture shift.
 
Saint_Dee said:
I'm not entirely sure this is the case, considering that developers are saying it's easier to develop for the PS4 and Xbox One than it is for the previous gen, mainly because of the architecture shift.
Click to expand...

Easier yes. But there's a reason CG movies take up to 5 years to produce. Games are very quickly catching up to the visuals of CG films, and thus it takes a lot longer to create those visuals. I could be wrong though.
 
Gouko_Tenrou said:
I honestly don't care anymore.

No matter what we think, people will still go out and buy the new COD year after year.

It's like brainwashing, without anybody actually doing anything about it.
Click to expand...
I also bashed Call of Duty on the internet after playing Ghostst single player but the mp actually is a lot of fun and it wprks unlike some pther high profile game :)
 
Sometimes a game for mindless fun is needed. This is how I have viewed the franchise. I honestly dont care if it's a rehash, It worked in the past, and it should work for a little while longer. Only thing I ever got tired of was the maps. So this is all I really care about. Same gameplay, different maps....I'm sold :)

But then again, I am easily pleased. I don't take this as serious as some people.
 
brendanvb said:
Easier yes. But there's a reason CG movies take up to 5 years to produce. Games are very quickly catching up to the visuals of CG films, and thus it takes a lot longer to create those visuals. I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may no one is ever going to expect a photorealistic CoD game so it won't be as a big an issue for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top