Why modern games are worse and worse with passing years?

lolpop109 said:
Yeah but I think that people had some valid arguments for liking COD. And I mean all cods before and including Black ops 2.

I mean they had good gun models and animations (Probably the best around). Good graphics. Voice acting was actually okay. Good length campaign. And then from Morden warefare they had good multiplayer too (Thats been ruined now because of micro translation.

Now cod ww2 has shitty grahpics compered to BF1 it has bad reload animation also. Can't comment for voice acting. Muitplayer dumb down with new classes no perks anymore. And its full of mirco transatcions. Games like BF1 are far better than that to be honest.

Online shooters are good but there simple and you have to get the simple things right COD has pretty much done that everything and I see why people like it. But now there other games that are completely out performing them. E.g BF1 in visual and gameplay. Cod in its day was still a trailblazer and a bar setter for online muitplayers for sure. But now there the same ever year.


Also talk about making a 'generic' game. Cod ww2. Sounds about the most generic game like ever ? This title sounds like one of the frist games ever on the genis or something. Talkig about trying to appeal to a big market.
Click to expand...



CoD has fundamental issues with its design. The campaigns have always been short. Remember CoD4? It had 3 chapters and over 20 missions. Each mission lasts anywhere from 8-14 minutes even including some of the cutscenes. I remember being unable to beat certain parts of levels on Veteran difficulty, like "Ultimatum," due to the infinitely respawning enemies (only a major issue in Veteran since you died in 3 shots). This artificially padded the time spent in each level. I soon found out that the easiest way to progress is to run past most of the enemies while they're about to appear or are shooting at you. Bang, so much for those tactical orders my squad was giving me! I won't get into how broken its multiplayer was, since that requires me to dive into all the buglists and balance issues of the game.

CoD's biggest issue is that it isn't trying hard enough to break the trend that was set with CoD4. MW2 was a step away, but most of Infinity Ward's employees left shortly after game launch, and Treyarch is constantly working to bring a new angle on CoD with each iteration of their Black Ops series. Advanced Warfare was the only one that truly broke the trend with Call of Duty, but in the worst ways possible, making gunfights impossible to predict and adding a weapon variant system to the game.

I'm not going to judge CoD WW2 since I haven't played it yet, but from reading your post, you must have gotten some experience playing the game? Oh, and Call of Duty tends to opt for better performance over graphical fidelity (every current gen CoD in the past few years have been doing this for console, which is why you see the fps switch between 30/60 during cutscenes in BO3/IW), which explains why it hurts your eyes to look at. Oh noes, microtransactions? The things that have been in almost every AAA game for the past 3-4 years? Why I never!

Also, there's no need to bring Battlefield into the mix. No one needs another in-depth discussion over which casual FPS is better. That's what those comparison vids on YouTube are for.
 
Last edited:
TheAdversary said:


CoD has fundamental issues with its design. The campaigns have always been short. Remember CoD4? It had 3 chapters and over 20 missions. Each mission lasts anywhere from 8-14 minutes even including some of the cutscenes. I remember being unable to beat certain parts of levels on Veteran difficulty, like "Ultimatum," due to the infinitely respawning enemies (only a major issue in Veteran since you died in 3 shots). This artificially padded the time spent in each level. I soon found out that the easiest way to progress is to run past most of the enemies while they're about to appear or are shooting at you. Bang, so much for those tactical orders my squad was giving me! I won't get into how broken its multiplayer was, since that requires me to dive into all the buglists and balance issues of the game.

CoD's biggest issue is that it isn't trying hard enough to break the trend that was set with CoD4. MW2 was a step away, but most of Infinity Ward's employees left shortly after game launch, and Treyarch is constantly working to bring a new angle on CoD with each iteration of their Black Ops series. Advanced Warfare was the only one that truly broke the trend with Call of Duty, but in the worst ways possible, making gunfights impossible to predict and adding a weapon variant system to the game.

I'm not going to judge CoD WW2 since I haven't played it yet, but from reading your post, you must have gotten some experience playing the game? Oh, and Call of Duty tends to opt for better performance over graphical fidelity (every current gen CoD in the past few years have been doing this for console, which is why you see the fps switch between 30/60 during cutscenes in BO3/IW), which explains why it hurts your eyes to look at. Oh noes, microtransactions? The things that have been in almost every AAA game for the past 3-4 years? Why I never!

Also, there's no need to bring Battlefield into the mix. No one needs another in-depth discussion over which casual FPS is better. That's what those comparison vids on YouTube are for.
Click to expand...


I have not play the game but have only read and watched video's on it. I am not compearing BF1 to Cod I just watched an interesting video where it compered. The reload animations and gun models. Cod is suspose to be the best 'supposedly' but what I am saying is that it's probably not anymore. I am just struggling to see another good points about the game really.

Not to mention there is a ww1 machine gun included in cod ww2. That was barely used in cod ww1. And have you seen the reload animations for the spring field scoped
 
lolpop109 said:
Now that's how you appeal to your audience. But don't forget this COD is realistic and 'boots on the ground'
Click to expand...

>Realistic.

*Giggles*

Even games on the 'realistic' side of the scale like Red Orchestra and Arma are hilariously dumbed down from real combat.

Video game players cannot even comprehend how terrifying war is, I don't!

Realistic is a silly buzzword FPS players like to use to jack off with, they should use the term when arteries and bones are simulated.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
>Realistic.

*Giggles*

Even games on the 'realistic' side of the scale like Red Orchestra and Arma are hilariously dumbed down from real combat.

Video game players cannot even comprehend how terrifying war is, I don't!

Realistic is a silly buzzword FPS players like to use to jack off with, they should use the term when arteries and bones are simulated.
Click to expand...

Yeah of course its realistic. That's what they do in real war and have a 12 man team death match and see how win. THey also do capture the flag as well.

And then everyone goes home.

But I guess the counter argument is what games are actually realistic !???
 
lolpop109 said:
But I guess the counter argument is what games are actually realistic !???
Click to expand...

Basically none to be honest.

DF is probably the most realistic when it comes to how interactions with characters are, but even then it's highly derpy.
 
lolpop109 said:
Not to mention there is a ww1 machine gun included in cod ww2. That was barely used in cod ww1. And have you seen the reload animations for the spring field scoped
Click to expand...
Why does that matter for an arcade shooter? Authenticity isn't what got people to enjoy Call of Duty.
 
lolpop109 said:
Not to mention there is a ww1 machine gun included in cod ww2. That was barely used in cod ww1. And have you seen the reload animations for the spring field scoped
Click to expand...
Eh, all countries used some pretty old machine guns as well during WW2. Germany certainly had some old MG08/15 in use.
 
TheAdversary said:
Why does that matter for an arcade shooter? Authenticity isn't what got people to enjoy Call of Duty.
Click to expand...

There the ones who branded it 'Realistic' Not me. If you trying to sale something and call it realistic isn't that false advertisement
 
Hassknecht said:
Eh, all countries used some pretty old machine guns as well during WW2. Germany certainly had some old MG08/15 in use.
Click to expand...

Well yeah I guess included mg 15 and lewis gun. Maybe there trying to cash in on the popularity of BF1 i guess......
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
For their time, they were pretty authentic.

It wasn't until MW and shit where it got stupid.

Even World At War was pretty good.
Click to expand...
Call of Duty was made with the intent on bringing about a more cinematic experience for the WW2 shooter scene. This is what led to them adding health regeneration in CoD2. However, the interest in WW2 shooters was waning, and Casual gamers were starting to get a foothold in the market. Nothing has really changed about Call of Duty after CoD2 with the exception of Multiplayer.

This is where CoD4 releases, and so caused a huge market distruption that led to Call of Duty becoming this huge game franchise. It ended up dropping the standard for shooters to the point where many companies (Dice, Bioware, Ubisoft, etc) start butchering their games so they can get a piece of that CoD pie.
 
Most modern games suck now because the cultural pendulum has swung towards it, so now people want to be a part of it. The trouble is they don't want to put in the effort to actually understand it, so they demand it be watered down to make it more "accessible".

Why else do you think there are people seriously defending the idea of being able to skip any or all fights in a game? They don't want to earn that victory, they want it handed to them on a silver platter. So they can feel "cool" for being a "gamer".
 
Zenoguy, are you telling me that real wars aren't fought by pressing buttons on a controller while following cutscenes? Holy shit! I didn't know that!
 
UnlimitedSprint said:
Most modern games suck now because the cultural pendulum has swung towards it, so now people want to be a part of it. The trouble is they don't want to put in the effort to actually understand it, so they demand it be watered down to make it more "accessible".

Why else do you think there are people seriously defending the idea of being able to skip any or all fights in a game? They don't want to earn that victory, they want it handed to them on a silver platter. So they can feel "cool" for being a "gamer".
Click to expand...

Pacifist runs are ancient, however. They're not about having victory handed to them on a platter but having the option of utilizing stealth, charisma or such to beat the end - like a super stealth F1 run or a Diplomat NCR run. Why is that bad?
 
Danuis said:
Pacifist runs are ancient, however. They're not about having victory handed to them on a platter but having the option of utilizing stealth, charisma or such to beat the end - like a super stealth F1 run or a Diplomat NCR run. Why is that bad?
Click to expand...
By "skipping a fight", I don't mean play in the game in such a way that you can avoid physical combat. Hell, Fallout is in many ways built around that idea.

I mean shit like this, where people try to advocate the idea that a game should provide a button that lets you skip hard bits.
 
I never got the point of that... I mean why not just watch a youtube video of the game if you don't want to play it? I just can't understand the level of disengagement from a hobby when you are dedicating so much time to it but also demanding it be as braindead as possible. Maybe it's time to switch to something different? Feed birds? Watch soap operas?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top