I think the core of Miyamoto's games and his influence on Nintendo through the last near 3 decades has shaped the company in such a way where their values and his are more or less in line. When he leaves, he'll have left behind a legacy of which is already ingrained and followed by staff, so his departure will not be noticeable from the products they produce.
I'm a fan because of how happy I am with their dedication to gaming, whereas nowadays the same sh1t gets pumped out by a majority of companies- yearly incomplete games needing 20 patches, DLC and constant online connection to play. Even I'm guilty of buying Call of Duty on an annual basis, not anymore I'm afraid!
@emptycow LOL. I love how you've produced a video nothing to do with the technology of the PS4 and touted it as being as such. The Wii U can handle these graphics, the video of which mostly incorporates filters and special effects to make it look better when a lot of the models are low polygon. Granted the textures are high but it's not a videogame.
As long as it plays better than this looks, the next Mario on Wii U will be fantastic.
"CoD has shown other developers that it's completely ok to release the same crap every year. Something that is becomming ever present in our time. To add to that, it was also CoD who started with the outrages DLC prices. Now, pretty much every company charges a absolutely redicules price for little to no content."
I'm pretty sure DLC pricing was started elsewhere. Call of Duty is just known for it. Considering that they're offering free maps and content to people currently pretty much nulls your statement here. If you could also give examples as to prove the point that other comapnies have followed suit releasing similar games consecutively 4 years in a row with little change, then I'd like to know.
As I've already said, Call of Duty has changed it's content over the years. However I don't understand why people expect franchises to change their stripes for the sake of a few players. I'm a fan of many game series, and I can tell you that this whole "PLZ CHANGE THE GAME COS U BRING OUT THE SAEM STUFF ALL THE TYME" is also relevant and mentioned (but not excluded to) the oddballs of the fanbases of:
Sonic The Hedgehog
Super Mario
The Legend of Zelda
Halo
Pokemon
Grand Theft Auto
Guitar Hero
Metroid
And there are many more. There are always people who complain that they want a particular series or franchise to play. These same people don't realise that for every game they want to change, there's already a similar style of game out there which is also the very game they want.
@Jawehawk-DK I'm sorry, but I can't help but argue this.
" Let me first start by answering the worst possible arguement you could have brought. And htat's story related. No CoD game has EVER had anything even remotely close to a good story. Nor has any CoD game done anything special in the way they tell their stories. Their stories are filled to the edge with plot holes, horrible dialogue, plot convinience and just plain stupidity. The characters in the games are also some of the most shallow and uninspired characters, ever."
Deciding whether the game has a good story is opinion. There are some that like it, others that don't. I've always enjoyed the Call of Duty plot lines and how the games connect to produce one entire story. The hundreds/thousands of Call of Duty Wikia users would love to have a chat with you.
What plot holes are you speaking of? I can't think of one. For a game which basically tells a story about war, ther'es nothing to start plot holes to begin with. Horrible dialogue, I couldn't even agree with you there, with the varying main characters being memorable and deep. Captain Price is especially iconic for a series which bases itself on the fighting of the ordinary man.
"Quality is not a subjective thing. Some things are quality, some ain't. That has nothing to do with personal opinion. You don't expand a game by adding a few more weapons and perks. That's not innovation. It's something that can be done in a few days."
That entirely depends on what you would class as "quality". Obviously if we're talking about a train wreck of a game like Sonic The hedgehog 2006, then there's no disputing it, but for a hugely successful and well known and highly scored series like Call of Duty, you can't really call it crap. Either that or the entire world is against you, other gamers, professional reviewers and the general public alike.
Your whole argument seems to be that Call of Duty doesn't innovate. It doesn't need to innovate in a meaningful way to be any good. Look at all the classic game franchises. Mario, for example, has stuck with the same gameplay in 3D since 1996 with Mario 64. Each game that comes out is revered though, with Mario Galaxy being one of the top scored games of all time. What did they do? They added anti-gravity which turned you upside down, hardly an earth shattering concept which hadn't ever been done before. In the same way, Call of Duty adds new vehicles and weapons. What more do you want from a standard warfare-based shooter?
"On top of that. CoD has some of the worst most unrealistic weapon design(both cosmetic and in how they work) in the entire game industry. You'd be hard pressed to even call the weapons in the games a representive of their real world counter part."
So you're an expert on weaponry then? I can tell you that by playing Battlefield and many other shooters that they all seem to have gotten this wrong then, because most modern shooters handle weaponry in a similar manner. Online doesn't particulary count for much anyway when you consider that the weapons have to be balanced for fairness between players.
"Adding Co-Op in a franchise does not neccesarily equal new actual content. The Co-Op in WaW was pathetic. No different from playing the game alone, other than the fact that you know had 2 people shooting bad guys, instead of 1."
Yeah, no different, other than that there are two players. Helping eachother. Shooting bad guys. How is this not a decent 2-player mode?
"Spec Ops was indeed the first and ONLY innovation the modern CoD games have come up with thus far. Too bad it's painfully simplistic, and just further shows the horrible AI."
The reason why it's successful is because of it'sarcade-style and simplicity. I don't quite know what you want from the franchise specificaly because you haven't once mentioned what you do want. Also, how is the AI horrible? Far as I know, the enemies seem to make smart choices the higher in Spec Ops and Survival that you go, and become increasingly aggressive, displaying real tactics and descision making procedures based on what you're doing. At the end of it all though, this mode sets their advances in to 'attack mode', so it's not fair to judge the franchises AI based on this mode.
"Calling the MP deep pretty much shows that you are the one who has no idea what he's talking about. There's nothing deep about it. You choose the most OP weapon you have access to, and shoot 8 year olds, who will then continue to call you names for doing so. That pretty much sums up the MP."
You really have no idea yourself what you're on about, and you're basing what you've said on the obvious stereotype. Overpowered weapons are easily combated with any sort of skill or decent weapon set out at any level. The guns are balanced accordingly. For example, akimbo weapons in MW3 are effective, high in damage and rate, but aren't accurate from distances and when firing for longer. You can easily kill someone with a shotgun from close distance, a submachine gun can equally match them, or you can use an assault rifle with good aim and by selecting the right perks, get the gain on the enemy, rendering their spraying n00bness useless. Assuming you're just talking about regular death match which has no special objectives, you can also mute said 8 year old like someone of any sort of sense would and play as if they never existed.
without going in to every single aspect of such a large franchise, I can honestly tell you that you have literally no idea what you're talking about, your statements are entirely subjective and you've stated your own facts without so much as even looking at the evidence.<br>
Since Modern Warfare, each game has expanded upon the next. World at War tried to keep with Modern Warfare's formula, but included gibbing, more destructible environments, more game modes, vehicles and special weapons such as the Flamethrower. This game also was the first to include cooperative gameplay.
<br> <br>
Modern Warfare 2 expanded the series by giving the player more weapon choice (like the dual wield), a nuke in mutliplayer as a special killstreak, a spec ops mode and more, like the way killstreaks could be earned and chosen, emblems and special badges.
<br>
Black Ops changed the entire formula of storytelling in the single player, made the intel within the game meaningful to the plot, introduced the CoD points for buying equipment instead of unlocking it, introduced the player card, gave the player a theatre mode and also introduced the element of Call of Duty elite. MW3 did similar things but tried to balance out more of what MW2 did wrong.
<br>
There's enough change per game to warrant a purchase. Even the graphics have had a nice overhaul and become more detailed. Call of Duty isn't the most graphically impressive series around, but it gets the job done at a consistent framerate.
<br>
The multiplayer is fun and deep, the single player games are always a blast and contain enough secrets, extras and new modes to go back now and then, and it's also stayed true to its roots whilst adding new stuff. It's not the perfect series, there is far more to be done, but it ain't bad. On the contrary, it's great. Sure ther are some weapons which some might say are slightly overpowered, sure it's stayed with it's roots, sure it's an overhyped game franchise, but who's fault is that? Not Call of Duty's, it's the audience who buy them. They have good reason to get excited every yearLastly, just gotta say that my browser hates Gamespots typing boxes.
@Jawehawk-DK I totally disagree with your main point there. Call of Duty is popular for a reason. People like familiarity. There's a few people on the internet who like to make out that everyone hates the games but it's simply not true. There's an idiotic notion out there that people who buy and play Call of Duty ONLY buy and play Call of Duty. This is just one game franchise of hundreds on the market. I myself enjoy the Call of Duty games thoroughly. It's not without its flaws, but it's a good franchise. I'm also dismayed at people who complain that the series hasn't changed at all. Play the first Call of Duty and then play the latest,and you'll see that it's changed a lot. Despite that, there's still some familiarity as to how the game controls and the general overtones, so it's still the same recognisable series. Change it too much and it won't be Call of Duty anymore. If you want different, play different. Play Halo, or Battlefield or Brothers in Arms, or something. I'd also like to point out that there has been graphical improvements with each game. Not that I particular care, because I play them on Wii anyway, where the controls are much better.
TQ_NintyNoE's comments