http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/116/1160501p1.html

Very good two page article on CoD. While the repeating idea was lack of innovation, they mentioned that BF3 could change many things.

What about Brink? :biggrin:

Hope lies in Brink...

May God bless this gaming generation..

It's not a bad article but when CoD gets brought up here it tends to get contentious even if everyone is on the same side. Let's put some effort in to keeping this discussion thread and full of empty CoD hate. If you want to be critical that's fine but keep it civil and constructive. Let's also keep it from running away with itself, if this thread gets wrapped up with CoD's problems instead of what Brink is doing new then the topic really belongs in Community Discussion, not here. However if the discussion goes that way the thread will simply be locked rather than moved.


Will Brink fight against CoD clones? I think that's a safe bet and one virtually everyone here will agree with.

I have mixed feelings about the end of call of duty. Black ops for example, doesnt stand a chance anymore. There is no one single title out there that will outsell BO. But, they have just come out with KZ3, Crysis 2, Brink, and in November BF3. With such a huge range of options of shooter BO will definitely lose fan base to one or the other.

Now, what worries me is that MW3 is coming out sometime in November if im not mistaken. And by that time, Crysis2 KZ3 and brink will be several months old so they wont have that fresh enticing feeling that they had when they first came out. BF3 on the other hand, comes out in November also, and feel still be fresh against MW3. But is BF3 enough to go up against MW3 on its own? I sure as hell hope so!!

Indeed. I'd say that Brink is breaking the mold far more than Battlefield 3 is. Brink is, in fact, the only competitive multiplayer FPS that I know of that looks like it will be truly unique. Probably because it's the only one coming out that is an original IP and isn't a sequel of some sort.

CoD really, really needs to step up their game if they don't want to be left behind. That said, I can't help but wonder what MW3 is going to be like.

The thing is if MW3 was a truly bad game it would still get lots of sales because of the sheer amount of people who would buy it on the day of release it wouldnt matter.

At the end of the day people will flock to COD for one reason or another. Brink is obviously far superior but as someone else said by the time COD comes out Brink will be old news. Battlefield vs COD and even though BF will sell great COD will really have to screw up hard to lose many customers and will probably set some other world record. While I think COD sort of threw a monkey wrench into fps innovation its good to see fps's like Brink. Goes to show not every developer wants to cling to the COD branch. So destroyed the world? eh not so much. Just sort of put the world in a bit of a bizzare time freeze.

Hopefully Brink can change all that. It doesn't look like it's going to be mindless K/D pastepudding norm like COD. Brink and Battlefield 3 are definitely the 2 FPSs I'm buying this year. I'm also going to buy Skyrim and Saints Row: The Third. 2011 is an excellent year for games.

Don't forget RAGE, it will be released in mid-September.

And I think Brink will have plenty of momentum going in to the holiday season even if it isn't the latest game on the market.


True but this only works once. If the game bombs they still may make a fair bit of money on pre-orders but this will drop off precipitously as people hear it isn't worthwhile and decide to skip it or pick up their copy from the growing pile in the pre-owned bin. This also means that developers can't expect much from the DLC market and they'll also have an uphill battle to get people to play their next game.

I may read it later, but why blame the game for trying to survive in a sea of consumers that are relatively selfish?

I had problems with CoD before MW hit shelves, had many of the same problems with the SP of MW, and aside from WaW's Co-op campagin/MW2's Special Ops mode/BO splitscreen with bots, continue to have problems with CoD.

What CoD has that most others don't is something for two or more people that actually like to interact socially and humanly, and despite what a certain demographic seems to believe, that is a solid contributing factor to their success when compared to other games. It grabs SP people, splitscreen people, and onliners, thus it gets the biggest share of the pie.

Any game that has good individual success could easily dethrone CoD if they catered to all three consumer demographics.

I don't get why everyone hates COD all of a sudden. In 2007 COD was unstoppable! Yeah, sure, you get the occasional boosters, quick-scopers and noob-tubers. But if you don't know how to (or don't have the skills) to beat them, then it's not the game's fault..

Not trying to start anything. I'm just saying.

I agree.

But what innovations have they made forward since there big hit in 2007? They added a couple killstreaks, a shiny new paint job, and maybe a few new perks/weapons. Its basically the same old game.. over and over and over again.

I have nothing against COD or people who enjoy it, its just that theres nothing new, and quite frankly, its gets repetitive. At least Brink is making that small leap forward, trying something new, and not using the old "If it ain't broke don't fix it!" slogan..

I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, but i will explain to you why i hate CoD.

1. Ever since MW1 they have not changed anything. They keep coming out with mediocre games with minor changes just to maximize the profit.
2. They sold out again for more money. They gave microsoft exclusive rights to give them content before ps3. I, the damn gamer, get screwed over because this people want to make more money, not giving a damn about the players.
3. Again, they screw us over even further just to make more money. They sell those ridiculous map packs, at an obvious overpriced rate! Honestly, they want to sell us 4 maps for $15?! Do the math. They first sell us the game at $60 with 14 maps, guns, gameplay, a main story, multiplayer. practically EVERYTHING. Then they sell 4 maps for $15, which means that by the fourth map pack we will have paid $60 for 16 maps, when originally we paid $60 for an ENTIRE game which coincidently came with 14 maps. Where is the proportionality in that?!

Sorry if i sounded hostile. didnt mean to. But im seriously pissed at the developers and publishers of COD

I can't stand the SP as far back as I can remember (all the way back that is) for two reasons. The first is they consistantly made use of having enemies that could shoot/kill you, but you could not do the same to them without first reaching a certain point (why can the guy in the tower snipe me if I can't snipe him, I can see him, I can tell I'm hitting him, why won't he F'in die?) And the second, similar issue, is that they commonly made use of situations where you had to reach a point to end a constant respawn. I once spent an hour killing the guys in a house from cover (MW), only to have them continue to spawn repeatedly. I finally went to the house and cleared it (entirely useless to the story and not where I needed to go mind you). Don't give me guns to kill people from range if you don't want me to kill people from range.

And MP has been degraded by the push for mainstream. One example being that they strive to make their weapons easier to use so new people can use them, but then it becomes so easy for skill players to use them that the new people won't use them anyways (the sniper issue). Also much of their map design is built around the "clock" metality, where everyone basically tics around the exterior firing across at the enemy.

I don't want them to change COD all that much. I only count the IW titles as true COD anyway. Anything by Treyarch is just sub-par to me because it seems like the games they make either stick too close to the COD formula (WaW) or veer way off to the point where it feels alien and unfamiliar like Black Ops.

I like that I can jump into a new COD installment and be in familiar territory where the skills I've learned in previous games can carry over and I still can get to know the new game and what it offers without having to reinvent my play-style.

In short, I'd say that they've just gotten lazy after their past successes and have started phoning a lot of it in. And I think that killstreaks are one of the worst ideas ever put into a multiplayer shooter. Not sure if CoD was the first game to have killstreaks, but it's first FPS series I've played that had them. I am not a fan. :down:

For all of that though, you know they must have done something right to become this huge in the first place. I just think they need to start caring about their players again and not just their players' money. Despite my hatred for MW2, which was significant, and my general disappointment towards Blops, I don't think the series is beyond redemption. I harbor serious doubts that MW3 is going to be worth my money, but I will most certainly look into it. Fingers crossed for the removal of killstreaks! :frog:

The novelty of being able to call in a chopper in MW was cool, but then everybody wanted more and it just went off the deep end. The evolution should not have been "More super kill streaks" but rather "the team completed the objective, give them their chopper for 20 seconds".

Nah, that would just be further "rich get richer" kinda thing, but i see where u r going with it.

That is so incredibly true. Personally, I still don't play CoD, but the reason the Halo series has stayed so an entrenched as part of my gaming library is due almost 100% to the fact that it is so split-screen and LAN friendly. Even if you don't have another xbox or high speed internet connection, as long as you have enough controllers you and up to 3 other friends can have an awesome time.

Way too few games realize the importance of that, and miss out on sales accordingly.

I love Brink, and can't wait to play it, but I know for a fact that if it at least had LAN capability that my loyalty to it would grow tenfold. :bowdown:

Barebones is where it's at.. I'll agree that in MW2 I thought the whole "killstreaks" thing was blown way out of proportion. But atleast that was IW trying something new. I don't think the issue here is "how COD destroyed the world" but rather, "how Treyarch destroyed COD" by just copying what IW did because they want IW's success. Maybe that sounds a little silly, but that's how it would seem to me atleast.

Treyarch really blew their chance with Black Ops lol!

And what is that about sledgehammer planning on doing a call of duty game in outer space? I heard that in an ign video.

1. Added some to my post above.

2. Even properly balanced (which they've yet to do, in my opinion), killstreaks add elements to the multiplayer that I just don't like. I haven't played Homefront, but I've seen a few videos and I must say, the battle points system they've got seems far superior to killstreaks. It's one thing to reward players for doing well, but I think in CoD it's gotten out of hand.

Am I the only person that actually liked MW2?

Felt like being in a stupid awesome Michael Bay film.

after cod 2 it just went downhill the new cod's u just run in a small box of a map at super speed getting angry that you have to shoot people 50 times and they only have to shoot u once in the toa to kill you there is no skill in a 20 ft by 20 ft map battle field you hunt down people. the only reason cod has good sales is because they hype it so much. die hard gamers are in battlefield and well the stupid people are playing cod and im sure there a lot more stupid people. brink beats cod battlefield beats everything F tray ark

Not gonna, lie, I could totally go for that. Especially if it has Nazi Zombies... IN SPACE! And especially-er if they do zero-gravity gameplay like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqsU5nWLguU

I kept thinking they were going to have a space map in MW2 because of the super short space level but alas...