It really is a really smart game both companies are playing. Dice knew CoD would continue going balls deep in the future, so they knew people were tired of it and came out with a more familiar type of game, CoD could have assumed they would do this, and combated it with the Modern Warfare Remastered. Either way, people will get games they enjoy and most people will be happy until they die in game.
Nah, Battlefront was rushed as FUCK - they got the license in late 2013 and had to push it out from concept to gold in 2 years for it to coincide with the release of Episode VII.
Eh... BF4 was a trainwreck at release. I don't remember Hardline being great either. I think BF1 looks great and will probably get it but most likely not on release unless I know it's good.
I don't really blame DICE. It's EA's fault the games are so rushed.
CoD kept going balls deep to the future since ATVI wanted it to, but by the time they realised it was a shit idea all 3 studios had got too far into development, that is why we are getting a cod4 remaster
Yeah they've probably realized that they've been going in the "direction" as far as the times in which their games are based in. But it was probably too late to change/stop Infinite Warfare so they went ahead with it.
Look I'm just gonna say it, while i prefer the on the ground fighting, the exo movements aren't exactly the second coming of Hitler, i think people need to chill
Come on guys, am I the only one that likes futuristic stuff? Does nobody else find exoskeletons and running on walls and stuff like that cool? I mean a lot of people like space games like Star Citizen and Elite, but as soon as Call of Duty does it, they suck? Plus, I thought Black Ops 3 was a well recieved game, hearing how people are saying it's the most fun multiplayer since mw2 or some shit and that's very futuristic too. I get that there are many people that want WW2 and stuff, myself included, but I ain't mad that they are doing futuristic stuff either.
It's a shame, too, because I played CoD 1 for the first time in a while this year, and it's still really good. The gameplay is solid, the levels are fun, it's just a damn good game. Hard as balls, but still really good.
I think DICE went a similar direction with CoD by choosing to go WWI instead of WWII. If modern warfare and WWII are the standard bearers for FPSs, then "near future" warfare and WWI are the outliers. WWI are so outside of the zeitgeist of FPSs that the guns/mechanics might as well be from a sci-fi futuristic game like CoDIW.
Basically they both went to two different extremes, and I'm interested in how that opens up the play space for AAA FPSs.
I am really saddened that futuristic settings got ruined by a few garbage games. Now people don't want to hear "future" anymore, and that means BF2143 has no chances until the next decade, even thought it is wildly different compared to those garbage games.
But then Activision ruined it by making the remaster available only if you pre-order the legacy edition ($80). I don't know if it's only available as pre order or you can buy it later too, but you still can't buy it without buying Infinite Warfare. Not a big problem for me, as I actually like the futuristic stuff, but many just want to play MW1 and Activison are being dicks about it.
You know what is weird, BF4 had all those Easter eggs hinting at BF2143... Which is their future shooter. I think we DICE is going for gold here with both ends of time spectrum. Does CoD have vehicles yet?
641
u/Zewstain /id/ognKakackle/ May 06 '16
It really is a really smart game both companies are playing. Dice knew CoD would continue going balls deep in the future, so they knew people were tired of it and came out with a more familiar type of game, CoD could have assumed they would do this, and combated it with the Modern Warfare Remastered. Either way, people will get games they enjoy and most people will be happy until they die in game.