Last one I completed, was on the hardest setting and it took around 6hours playing, watching all the interactive cut screens... and if I hadn't have got stuck on one part where I was behind some rocks, I probably would have done it in 5 hours too, but I wasn't even trying.
COD for me, IS a rehash and there is no new game play in the story mode. Half the time, it felt like I could have just watched my team's AI just fight for me if I kept out of the way long enough. I understand they need to keep the story going forward, but it seems they're more intent on keeping the gamers attention on the story itself rather then the story's game play... and we are playing a game, right? right..
Haven't played ghosts, but the one before that. I didn't finish. After a few hours, I just stopped playing. The story line made me disinterested, and felt like the last two I had already played though.
Still, I makes me wonder why they don't sell the single player mission and multiplayer as separate packages since I don't play multiplayer, but know a few people who've never played single player, let alone simply not liking.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, MW1 took me 7h on hard, MW2 9h, World at War 8h. I'm glad I borrowed those games, because if I payed more than 5 EUR I'd felt like I wasted my money. The story is good, but it's not very replayable.
I didn't like MW1 and MW2 MP map design. I liked WaW a bit, but no of my friends really wanted to play it.
So the first CoD I bought since AA was Black Ops 2. SP took me 12h in 1,5 playtrough. More than one, because they added some replayability. I think I'll even play it again someday. Good story. But still, it's quite expensive. I wouldn't buy it for singleplayer only. We bought it together with friends and I played 200h of MP until I was skilled enough that it was not other players but bugs and poor game mechanics that were killing me. And I was really disappointed with DLC and Season Pass pricing.
It was a good purchase, but I'm not buying another CoD anytime soon. It's not worth it's price for singleplayer and for MP they really need to change that 13-years old engine to something new.
That said, I'm not buying BF4 either. For one thing I don't see enough improvement over BF3P I bought to justify spending money on another BF game, for the second, I well remember how they screwed BF3 for over half year and I suspect it may happen again. For the third, I really hate them using something as unreliable as web plugin for core functionality of a game. I mean, the game itself crashed on me just a few times in 154h of playing. But the plugin and enforced closing and starting game again after each server change caused over a hundred crashes. That's one for every 1,5h of playing. Damn!
Comment has been collapsed.
In 10-15 years we'll all have our own personal holodecks.
Comment has been collapsed.
CoD does have good single player. However, they are very linear and sometimes feel more like an interactive movie than a game. At least they have character, unlike anything EA seems to put out imo. The multiplayer changes back and forth every year between infinity ward and treyarch, so of course it isn't the same every year. However, you do buy something that looks similar to its older version two years ago. That isn't bad, but I feel like it is one of those games like sport games. You can release it every year all you want, but I have no intentions of buying it everytime. With that said, last time I played a CoD and really enjoyed it was MW2... maybe it is time for me to get another one finally, since BF4 looks like BF3.5.
Comment has been collapsed.
"unlike anything EA seems to put out imo" - are u serious?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup. Every battlefield I tried to play didn't have that experience I enjoy. Just characters with no personality. Bad Company series was as close as they can get for me, but I only played Bad Company 2's story since I couldn't get into the first and I must say I wasn't entirely impressed. I don't know WHY, but I just prefer's CoD's hollywood style action.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well that's something else...EA-Dice try to make of BF characters more like a real soldier life...that's Battlefield...CoD has a fucking Steven Seagal style...Cpt Price with 150 years old and still not die. It's more...heroe style.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I find that boring and poor story telling. Give the lead character little to no personality and say "oh, it isn't because we are lazy but because we think soldiers in real life are equally as boring!" I have nothing against it, but I did say "imo" and should have been left at that. If I want to see what boring real life is like with unrealistic weapons and technology physics.... well... I simply wouldn't.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, because in real life soldiers run on trains and fistfight terrorists in the centre of New York. Kinda sounds like a Jackie Chan movie. Battlefield's single player is garbage (although BC2 wasn't that bad), live with it.
And do you seriously think that Captain Price is 150 years old?
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh you CoD Fanboy.
I really don't see many differences between quality changes between CoD4 and Ghosts.
And CoD4 IMO had about 400x better store than Ghosts. (as Did MW2)
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not a fanboy, but nice try. I was actually a BF3 gamer and before that I played MAG with, every once in awhile, MW2. Of course, a primitive mind like yourself cannot comprehend someone like me to have an opinion that is different than yours without being biased and be a fanboy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, BF4 has advanced their MP a bit, and AC is SP focused a bit more.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same game every year , should be A yearly sports title .
Comment has been collapsed.
And GTA V's multiplayer is pretty much the same as GTA IV's, yet nobody whines.
Comment has been collapsed.
What are you talking about???? GTA V's multiplayer has been improved upon on every single little detail you can imagine. The only thing downgraded from IV is that V doesn't have as many interior buildings to enter on the map, but the map in GTA V is like 5x bigger than GTA IV's... or however much bigger it is. You must have NEVER played GTA IV.
You make absolutely NO FREAKING SENSE what so ever. I should know. I've been playing both game's multiplayer since they were released. In GTA IV Free Roam... its just you and other players, the map, and weapons and vehicles on the map. That's it, nothing else you just drive around or fly a chopper and kill players. I'm not gonna sit here for 10 or 15 minutes and type everything GTA V's Free Roam multiplayer has. Go look it up, because you obviously never played GTA V either. However, I will say a few things it has...
There was just a FREE update add on that came out a few hours ago, the Beach Bum Pack. They are going to add heists and the content creator to make your own heists, deathmatches, and races. Not to mention whatever DLC they have planned. Everything was revamped for GTA V's free roam compared to GTA IV. Weapons are not on the map anymore, they are in stores like single player where you buy them. You have money now to buy things like cars and clothing. You can goto strip clubs and pay for private dances, pay for hookers on the street like single player, get drunk or smoke bud. You can own an apartment or garage and up to 10 vehicles to store in the garage. You can buy boats, planes, tanks, and helicopters. There are hundreds of co-op missions and modes like survival. You can play tennis, golf, and darts. On the map in free roam there are armored trucks to rob and gang war locations to kill a group of enemies to clear out the areas. GTA IV Multiplayer has NONE OF THIS except 3 co-op missions. So you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Just go back to playing Call of Duty...
Comment has been collapsed.
Why would anyone buy CoD for single player? Probably be better off just watching a good movie. I recommend an 80s or 90s classic like Total Recall.
Comment has been collapsed.
Might as well watch in on youtube, not like you get to do anything for yourself anyway script script oh better go exactly where they tell you to otherwise you get a failure state
Comment has been collapsed.
"But they do really work hard on these games, that's what many gamers like to ignore."
lolk
Comment has been collapsed.
The development of ghosts for me is kinda strange. I mean, from the graphical aspect, I noticed that maps, objects and buildings in different missions look like they were made by totally different developers. I am serious. One of my friends told me that it is possible that they recycled the models and textures from previous modern warfare games. And look at that graphics in MP, dang, it is just the same as MW3, I don't believe it is powered by next gen engine.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, I have knowledge about game engine, I have tried importing 3ds max models into unreal 3 and I have also tried modifying a terrain in cryengine 3. Even from graphical aspect, engine is not just about shading. Next gen engine should have features like advanced particle system, hi res texture, surface and vegetation tessellation using normal map and displacement map, and camera lens effects like accurate DoF, bokeh, and blur. But whatever, what I mean here is that if you take close look at maps, objects in ghosts, you will notice that some of them are well polished and highly detailed, however some of them lack details. This is why I feel like ghosts were made by different devs. Moreover, the free fall mp map is bad in graphics, low res textures are everywhere. MP and some of SP missions really remind me of MW 2 and MW3.
Comment has been collapsed.
there is a good chance they reused a few models maybe, a few textures maybe. development of any sequel to anything is in part always going to be the game before it. (referencing is a big part of sequels) Aleri0n is right while the engine is in part a contributor to better graphics, the renderer is what makes it what it is. as long as your computer can support it (and not just forcing it on old hardware with low FPS) you will see the difference. but anyways a game engine is FAR more than graphics wise. i could very well belive that ghosts is built on a new engine even for MP. but it's just like BF4's beta, hugee map, constant com link commands and hints, teams and squads, secure zones. it felt EXACTLY like bf3, even the destruction part felt entirely old! but hey how much more can you change a giant group of people running around a map and shooting? i mean honestly?! we live in a world of idealism where everyone expects far more than a concept can ever even offer. we're pushing the edge on MMOFPS' as it is im sure but they are expected to push out more and more changes and features that to a point would have no absolute use to the core point of the FPS so no one would even notice them! or even recognize that it's a change and just mock it like it's such an insignificant effort. i'd challenge anyone who doesn't agree with this to make a battlefield/call of duty styled MMOFPS game and NOT come up with something similar to either game. :) j/s
Comment has been collapsed.
I just finished playing MW1 single player again a couple of days ago. I enjoyed the campaign quite a bit back in 2007, but being a bit older now, and more able to notice plot holes and fps tropes, the game was not nearly as enjoyable.
Comment has been collapsed.
And yet is considered an AAA game and IGN(orance) rates it 8.0/9.0 every year.
facepalm
Comment has been collapsed.
1,820 Comments - Last post 58 seconds ago by Kwek
28 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by BattleChaing
8 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by lostsoul67
384 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by NoYeti
16,302 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by GeoSol
47,108 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by BlazeHaze
8 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by kudomonster
9,540 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Dayannah
157 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by Swordoffury
123 Comments - Last post 28 minutes ago by cheeki7
869 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Zarddin
16,790 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by RDMCz
76 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Butterkatt
46 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by greddo
...is not what I think.
And even if there aren't many changes, the singleplayer is still worth the money.
Comment has been collapsed.