@tushwacker: The assumption of "how frequently the COD games get released" is accurate, which is why they have to innovate. They cannot send out the same game year on year. I am someone who has no interest in COD, not because I hate it, just cannot be bothered with it, with all the innovations it still feels the same game with tight mechanics, but nothing truly new.

Modern Warfare 3 was what turned me off, the MP maps all felt like the exact same layout and unsophisticated, just pointless with different settings i.e. jungle, middle east etc scene but same routes and congestion points. I came back for advanced warfare briefly and enjoyed it but it could not sustain interest.

I loved Black Ops 2 multiplayer and think that for people to come back and love the game with universal applause they should start 2 - 3 year releases of COD, use it as a platform to release new map packs, over 18 months - 2 years and release the next. Take a Battlefield / Halo approach where a game launch is an event, something to look forward to and know you will learn and refine skills as opposed to a shinier version being available in 12 months so you can skip this title. People need breathing space and games like CS stick around because people love maps and the platform grows, they don't release an annual wheel.

If Black Ops was the last one and they iterated on it I would probably still be playing it, however the DLC splits player bases, then the new game splits player bases and it just becomes a game that can be passed on because it is more of the same.

I know this will not happen right now as the game still sells amazingly well each year (although numbers are dropping), so people are voting with their wallet by buying the new iteration, but my experience (and hardcore players will most likely disagree) is that they do not have strong staying power. Numbers drop off and people cannot be loyal to a specific iteration. I would really just like to see all their projects cancelled and in 2 years time release "The Call of Duty" where it is a platform.

@AyatollaofRnR: That's exactly where my mindset is on this game. I actually enjoyed Unity by the end, the co-op missions got me on track, as the chest bloat had initially turned me off that game. In the end it was fairly enjoyable, and London looks like a really cool setting to explore, I just cannot be bothered right now.

I get that Ubi keep sending them out as it is a money maker, but it will be here next yr for half the price when there is a lull in gaming in March.

@myhomieyoda: I think @greaseman1985 does like reviews and is seeking either more objectivity in how games are reviewed or failing that, the reviews would just be the prose and no metric attached so that the reader can make their own mind up.

Personally review scores do not bother me regarding segregation of the market and comparing it to other games as I prefer the product to be judged on it's merits i.e. an RPG's score being lower than a driving game or FPS or FPS online... who really cares? I am not studying basic algebra where we need to gather like terms to make an equation. It is not fair to start a bell curve of where an open world game with 40+ hours of content gives you more so that is a 1 - 10 scale, however an FPS with no campaign can only be 1 - 6 because they didn't make it like game = x, or it is inferior because you like driving games more than MOBAs.

Halo 5 released a game that offers MP and a campaign and it should be reviewed on that basis, Battlefront is releasing a game that is MP only and should be judged on that basis. It could be fantastic with the execution and deserve a 10 for what it accomplishes, it might miss the mark and get something else. At the end of the day the review is just a guide to inform us on whether this product is good and deserving of our time and money.

I think the no score is a good model if executed well i.e. quick intro - the review and then a summary at the end.

Anyway that's my opinion and others have theirs, no right answer.

@rosinmonkekyx17:

That may be a partnership in it's simplest terms, however there is a lot more to it than that. Activision is not funding them for Sh!ts and giggles, they expect a return on investment. It has been reported that Bungie added in the micro-transactions as an agreed interim solution to bring money in for Activision while they try to delay the annual DLC targets that are required to honour the contract.

Activision may bankroll Bungie, however that has set some very firm targets that they need to hit, which in effect rushes content and causes a poorer product to be released, where Bungie have even admitted to releasing things that was not to their standards. So I would not say independent; they have creative control over content, but they must continuously ship content, they cannot delay if something does not meet standards, the goal is now hitting Activision targets or they are in breach of contract. The source for this was the Giant Bomb Podcast.

No need to go "all caps" and be derisory to others.

@Ejotei to expand on your answer of personal preference and individualism, the frustration I see is that too many people offer an opinion without any evidence to form that conclusion. Titanfall over hyped? Don't know yet to play to have a base for my decision. Was it marketed heavily? Yes as the XB1 is hoping this will start selling it's system like Halo 1 did for the original Xbox.

The Titanfall review goes live before the game is released and there is a significant amount of backlash and negativity without anyone elaborating on why, or how the conclusions have been drawn. An answer like "no single player so it must get a low score", well counter strike was MP only, and needed to be on-line back in good old dial up days and that is still the best FPS I have played. "COD with Mechs" maybe, but is that a bad thing? If so why? What about the other differences i.e.. double jump, wall running? Does this differentiate enough from COD and re-energise the FPS formula to justify full retail price or did you play it and were unimpressed?

It would be nice to take the emotion out of XB1, Wii U, PS4 (and software) etc. and judge the product on it's merits unfortunately there are a large group of people who hate on something without trying it, or because it does not fit your preferences. I have friends who hated Game of Thrones, and then they watched a few episodes and are hooked.

If people want to criticise it would be nice if it was constructive for someone legitimately looking to buy the game, not because it is XB1 and not PS4.

I see and respect where you are coming from, and for a consumer it would make it easier, but they have a lot to lose by teaming with the smart phones and other hardware providers. My preference would be for Nintendo to make a console that rivals Sony and MS, with a more traditional controller. I really want to play Nintendo games again, but justifying a Wii U entrance cost to play mario, zelda, smash bros and Pokemon is a large barrier.

They have the best IPs, but I also like 3rd party games that are multiplatform and the Wii U is not the console for Fifa, Battlefield or Assassins Creed. If they would just make something to compete and sell it at the higher PS4 rate then they would be my console of preference.

For me the love of Assassins creed was the time settings, attention to detail (venice, Hagia Sophia etc), recreation of history and a great game that didn't need guns to resolve conflict.

AC 1 did become repetitive, however was a new experience, amazing setting and I liked how you were a master assassin who was stripped of his abilities for disciplinary reasons, and while earning them back discovered truths. It was a whole new world to get lost in.

AC 2 was the pinnacle, almost did not play because of the repetitiveness of the 1st, but after hesitantly buying was completely hooked. The attention to detail in Italy was a great achievement and the game perfected the potential of the 1st. It was an immersive story and brilliantly period piece.

AC Brotherhood and Revelations felt like expansions to myself, I quite enjoyed them and thought revelations had some uncharted type game play missions.

AC 3 was a major let down, it felt that they tried to make the world to open, but with no reason for it. Hunting and frontier felt more like a time waste as opposed to driving or working in the game. It was as though once Skyrim was so successful as open world & Final Fantasy 13 was a corridor game being lambasted for no freedom Ubisoft hacked things on not because it added to the game, but to make the game last longer. Running between the homestead and Boston took to long and in the end I could not be bothered finishing the game. Also they changed the sync music, which was once a highlight and mainstay became pedestrian. The period was an interesting idea, but the narrative and execution was uninteresting and laborious compared to AC1 & 2.

Hopefully black flag creates that same sense of wonder, and transports gamers to that period and captures the imagination, however I think I am with other personnel who would prefer playing an AC game set in early Japan, or warring states of China.