Do you believe cod ghosts is "just like the other cod games"

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by Islandwarrior23 (8 posts) -

The cod series is obviously a hit, or they wouldn't sell millions and millions of copies. What I don't understand is why people go off and say ignorant comments such as, "All the call of duties are the same" or "Ghosts will be just like bo2 and mw3. Ok no! The new maps alone IMO make the game different and worth the 60 dollars, let alone ghosts is offering fully customizable characters, including female characters, new weapons, new weapon class the marksman that has the rendered scope, even the loadout and the kills streaks are new and improved! Is everyone still uptight that it's not on a new engine, which I've heard both that it is on a new engine and isn't. Not trying to argue, because I think that's ridiculous, but just give me your thoughts on every call of duty game being "the same" and thus not worth the disc it's written on.

#2 Edited by ZZoMBiE13 (22911 posts) -

I dunno, I never really had a problem with the CoD games. I don't play much multiplayer though, so it's not really a franchise I follow. More interested in shooting aliens in the face than other humans, so there's also that.

It is what it is. And Zombie mode is legit fun. I don't care what anyone says, I never get tired of shooting zombies in the face. Played out genre or not, I'll still have a good time with it.

#3 Posted by MathMattS (4012 posts) -

In terms of multiplayer, all of the COD games are the same.

But, in terms of single player, they're not. They have varying characters, story lines, and settings. Black Ops II had one of the best villains in the series, as did MW2 and MW3 with their villain, Makarov. MW 2 and 3 painted a riveting picture of a potential World War 3.

In FPSs, I generally prefer single player over multiplayer.

#4 Posted by contracts420 (1956 posts) -

The core gameplay has stayed the same, yes. But everything else has seen significant changes, tweaks and upgrades over the years. Look at Black Ops 2...

Single player

- Customizable weapon loadout in single player
- Branching story choices
- Strikeforce Missions

Multiplayer

- Pick 10 system
- Improved Theater mode
- Codcasting
- League Play
- Improved Emblem creator

Zombies

- Custom Zombies games
- New modes

Add on top of all that the new setting in 2025 and all the new weapons and gadgets that come with it. I'm sure there are things I am missing as well.

I'd gladly argue that the Pick 10 system is as significant a change to the multiplayer offering as the original Create A Class first introduced in COD4. A shame to see so many players don't even bother to acknowledge it. In terms of multiplayer I believe Black Ops 2 is the best in the series.

Heck even Black Ops 1 was a significant upgrade as well, Treyarch has done a fantastic job with the multiplayer side of the series. Sucks that the campaigns have yet to offer us more gameplay choice and instead focus squarely on the hallway to setpiece shooting gallery the series has yet to shrug off.

#5 Posted by VALikimlav (324 posts) -

Call of Duty is a lowest common denominator game. That's why it sells millions. It's accessible, and it's fun enough. That said, it doesn't change much from game to game. Changing the maps is not significant enough as is making a new engine or upgrading the animations or even eliminating the terrible lag that is in the game.

I still like Call of Duty as a series, but I really wish fans would see it for what it is. There is nothing significantly upgraded even from Call of Duty 4 to Black Ops 2. Pick 10 is a gimmick and makes you pick multiple perks to do what other games let you do with one.

#6 Posted by LoG-Sacrament (20397 posts) -

everything is fundamentally the same like with most sequels. the approach of adding new content without really changing how you interact in any meaningful way is standard procedure in blockbusters sequels, so i can't really hold that against the titles (at least not more than others).

i just have no interest in CoD because the core concept of the series is flat. the games have the look of realism, but have no interest in playing like anything close to reality. the single player modes are just these big fantasies of set pieces without any ambition to do something more than aiming and shooting (if, of course, the set pieces don't override even those basic mechanics). the multiplayer modes are more interested in getting more people involved than rewarding good play.

#7 Posted by SoNin360 (5692 posts) -

I think when it comes down to it they're mostly the same, but with a fresh coat of paint. That said, I stopped with MW3 as I was quite tired of the series by then. The single player was a joke in that game. Not even 5 hours if I remember correctly, and riddled with set pieces and that slo-mo shoot a bunch of people in a room crap. I spent a great amount of time on the multiplayer in the past, but I was just sick of it by MW3. Simply put, I don't think they're doing anything wrong. I can't blame them for keeping the core experience mostly the same, and I see that they are trying to change it up. But still, the yearly releases didn't take long for me to get tired of the series.

#8 Edited by The_Last_Ride (74497 posts) -

From what i have seen it's more of the same with iimproved and better graphics

#9 Edited by D34DP00L_187 (18 posts) -

Call of Duty, since it's debut in the current generation has always been about two things: An addictive multiplayer, and a tongue-in-cheek campaign. In my opinion they have certainly succeeded - to a point. They've gradually improved throughout the years but with no exceptionally noticeable changes that are "ground-breaking" or "innovative." This is what I feel hurts this franchise more than annual releases, however I suppose if it's not broken then why fix it? Two separate development teams is a great idea, but when there's little to show for your work than there's going to be a negative response in kind. Call of Duty: Ghosts is under the magnifying glass and her patrons - incredibly scrupulous. Being that I have yet to play Ghosts it's impossible to form an educated opinion, but from what I have seen the game looks fun, but does seem to yield little difference from her predecessors. We'll see in a couple of days.

#10 Edited by firefox59 (4498 posts) -

Someone created an account to make this post? Geez. If you enjoy the game fine, but don't try and tell us it's not the same game when it is.

#11 Edited by Krelian-co (13098 posts) -

yes it, and it will stay the same until it stops selling activision has milked this franchise with as little effort as possible and i don't see that changing anytime soon.

#12 Posted by Archangel3371 (16247 posts) -

Yeah I think Ghosts be "just like other cod games" in the fact that it'll be an awesome game just like the previous ones. It looks great, can't wait to play it.

#13 Edited by hrt_rulz01 (7198 posts) -

They're all the same. Nothing new as usual.

#14 Posted by turtlethetaffer (17198 posts) -

Not worth it to me. I'm an almost exclusively singleplayer gamer, so the games don't offer much to me. Their campaigns don't do anything particularly special that hasn't been mimicked to death by now. Some people enjoy buying it every year; I am not one of those people. Too many other games that interest me more to bother with the yearly installments of CoD.