T-Smith on 13/9/2010 at 21:23
Or a business arrangement between Activision and GameServers to try and both appease the rabid masses after the debacle that was MW2 while filling Robert Kotick's pockets with more cash?
Aja on 14/9/2010 at 00:03
Quote Posted by T-Smith
You make it sound like the COD games are worth buying just for single player.
I only played COD4 for the single player, and I really enjoyed it.
T-Smith on 14/9/2010 at 01:04
Quote Posted by Aja
I only played COD4 for the single player, and I really enjoyed it.
I'm not saying the single player games are bad by any means (though I much prefer COD4's campaign over MW2). I'm probably biased since I actually play the MP, but I can't imagine the series would have been anywhere near this huge without it.
june gloom on 14/9/2010 at 01:35
No, the single player was a huge factor. Call of Duty did something that Medal of Honor for a long time simply failed to do: put the player right there. Medal of Honor for a long time felt like a PG-13 version of WW2 and a lot of it was a half-assed spy thriller. CoD on the other hand put more focus on the big battles, the big scenes; the original game borrowed a ridiculous amount from films like Enemy at the Gates and The Longest Day. In many ways that's why CoD3 was such a flop- it didn't have any of that.
I will say I'm getting a little bored of Stalingrad and I hate that it's happened as that's one of my favourite WW2 battles. That said, United Offensive followed up with the Battle of Kursk and that was some epic fucking shit.
The thing about multiplayer is that it wasn't really that big until CoD2 came out. The first game had to contend with Battlefield 1942 and Day of Defeat; when CoD2 rolled around, Day of Defeat had seen better days and nobody normal played BF42 anymore.
EvaUnit02 on 14/9/2010 at 04:42
Quote Posted by Absynthe
Is it being able to shutdown servers to push people into buying the next product? (hmmmmm)
Keep wearing that tinfoil hat, bro.
(
http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/xbox/games/162452/news/135630.20100913)
Quote:
“It's entertaining people on a magnitude that's mind-blowing and we work really hard to make sure it's supported for a long time.
“The effort that goes into the multiplayer is a living thing - we have a team that continues to work on it for World At War. We've done that for a long time and expect to do so for this game.
“We're going to support the hell out of Black Ops. That will be our focus post-release: making sure we keep our fans engaged, and hopefully as a result, they'll want to keep playing our game and won't want to trade it in.”
The highlighted quote proves that when they say "post-release support" they aren't just talking about premium map packs.
T-Smith on 14/9/2010 at 06:11
Quote Posted by dethtoll
The thing about multiplayer is that it wasn't really that big until CoD2 came out. The first game had to contend with Battlefield 1942 and Day of Defeat; when CoD2 rolled around, Day of Defeat had seen better days and nobody normal played BF42 anymore.
I realize the MP wasn't big from the start, but I still do think that the importance has shifted, and probably for the best in terms of the success of the series. I still own my original copy of CoD, and its a great game (and back then I loved it, but stuck to DoD for my MP fix). But the huge improvement in multiplayer that came with CoD4 is why the series has exploded into such popularity (for better or worse), not the strength of the single player campaign. If it hadn't been for the MP changes, who knows where the series would be right now?
Again, not saying I dislike the campaigns of the last couple games. I just couldn't justify myself shelling out $70 just for the single player experiance in the new CoD games like I can with other single player titles.
june gloom on 14/9/2010 at 11:16
Yeah, I can get that.
Absynthe on 14/9/2010 at 14:30
I was just throwing ideas out there I didn't really take it seriously. However, you are quoting PR stuff so I'll keep my tinfoil hat within reach. :D.
I'd still like to know more about how they decide these things. If p2p was good enough for MW2 why did they decide they needed dedicated servers? By contracting with a 3rd party this is an added expense. You don't spend money unless you think its a good investment. Maybe MW2 p2p was seen as a failure? However, when someone like John Carmack says dedicated servers are not needed anymore I'm just very curious what has changed between Quake and now.
As for MP being the reason CoD4 was a success? I thought it had more to do with it being the first non-WW2 game with mass appeal. But, I agree the multi did rock and bringing unlocks to the masses definitely sold the game.
EvaUnit02 on 12/10/2010 at 13:24
(
http://www.gametrailers.com/video/single-player-trailer-call-of/705937) New SP trailer.
So rather than MW2's series of James Bond set-pieces, we have the Canal Chase from Terminator 2 and the Russian Roulette scene from Deer Hunter.
Treyarch have promised a coherent and followable narrative this time, hopefully they deliver.
Content wise, this game is sounding very good. We have Zombie mode; fully featured botmatches (I can't remember the last game which had that option outside of say UT); enormous cosmetic customisation options (new for the CoD series, AFAIK); dedicated server support (including server admins, bub-bye nade launchers); mod tools; a lot MW2's cheap perks stripped out (I.e. good riddance to Commando); killstreak rewards seemingly have some actual semblance of balance this time.
Koki on 19/10/2010 at 09:26
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Treyarch have promised a coherent and followable narrative this time, hopefully they deliver.
I thought MW2 proved you don't need that in a CoD game.
[Edit] The animations are still really bad.
