Call of Duty: Ghosts
Replies
-
So... I finally played Ghosts last night. I think I might have over-hyped it a little bit. I'm happy that I have a new game, but I'm slightly let down. I guess I thought it was going to be better than it is. I'll have to wait and see how it is once they patch it (if they decide to -- which I'm sure they will).
Anyone else have any thoughts?
I haven't played it and I have no intention of it, but can I ask what it was exactly that let you down? Was it the fact that it's more or less the exact same game? Or what?
The issue with the game (in my opinion) is that the graphics look very similar to the quality in MW3. And, just the overall engine feels the same. The menus aren't as clear as Black Ops 2. I find it difficult to determine who's won a match after being placed back in the lobby. I can look back at the match stats, but it doesn't outright tell you who the winner is. At least not that I've seen, so you really have to pay attention at the very end of each match to find out whether or not your team won.
Apart from the that, the levels are a lot bigger and it doesn't seem like there's a lot of flow to them. It seems like it's just a ton of **** thrown in there for cover and everything is just randomly placed. The only thing that is better about this game is the fact that there's a lot more elevation, so you can go to various levels on the map and be above or below teammates and enemies. Also, with the maps being a lot bigger it's harder to find people, so the game seems a lot slower. It's not a run & gun game anymore. It's slightly more similar to Battlefield 3 in that aspect, but at the same time it's not similar to that game at all.
It seems painfully slow to level up. I played for at least 2-3 hours last night and I unlocked 1 gun. The point system for leveling up and unlocking stuff is weird as well. The new perk system isn't explained very well either. It just seems like a lot of stuff is unclear. I eventually figured out how the perk system worked, but it took me a little bit. I feel like they just tried to change so much and add in so many new elements that the game is a bit unpolished.
Granted... I still have fun playing the game and I'm excited I have something new, but the overall quality of the game isn't what I expected.0 -
So... I finally played Ghosts last night. I think I might have over-hyped it a little bit. I'm happy that I have a new game, but I'm slightly let down. I guess I thought it was going to be better than it is. I'll have to wait and see how it is once they patch it (if they decide to -- which I'm sure they will).
Anyone else have any thoughts?
I haven't played it and I have no intention of it, but can I ask what it was exactly that let you down? Was it the fact that it's more or less the exact same game? Or what?
The issue with the game (in my opinion) is that the graphics look very similar to the quality in MW3. And, just the overall engine feels the same. The menus aren't as clear as Black Ops 2. I find it difficult to determine who's won a match after being placed back in the lobby. I can look back at the match stats, but it doesn't outright tell you who the winner is. At least not that I've seen, so you really have to pay attention at the very end of each match to find out whether or not your team won.
Apart from the that, the levels are a lot bigger and it doesn't seem like there's a lot of flow to them. It seems like it's just a ton of **** thrown in there for cover and everything is just randomly placed. The only thing that is better about this game is the fact that there's a lot more elevation, so you can go to various levels on the map and be above or below teammates and enemies. Also, with the maps being a lot bigger it's harder to find people, so the game seems a lot slower. It's not a run & gun game anymore. It's slightly more similar to Battlefield 3 in that aspect, but at the same time it's not similar to that game at all.
It seems painfully slow to level up. I played for at least 2-3 hours last night and I unlocked 1 gun. The point system for leveling up and unlocking stuff is weird as well. The new perk system isn't explained very well either. It just seems like a lot of stuff is unclear. I eventually figured out how the perk system worked, but it took me a little bit. I feel like they just tried to change so much and add in so many new elements that the game is a bit unpolished.
Granted... I still have fun playing the game and I'm excited I have something new, but the overall quality of the game isn't what I expected.
In regards to the graphics and engine being the same, they more or less have been unchanged for years. That's one of the things people have been complaining about. Regarding the actual game engine, nothing has changed since I think COD2. The game is built using the old Quake III engine, which is outdated. And until Activision decides to abandon it in favor of a new engine you won't see any improvements there. The last COD game that included any actual changes that affected gameplay was COD4:MW.
Regarding larger maps with lack of flow, that's something a lot of people complained about with the original BO and with WAW. Activision contracts out to two different developers to develop the COD games. Infinity Ward, who is responsible for the MW series, and Treyarch, who is responsible for the BO series and WAW. Treyarch tends to favor large maps which change the combat style in a way that more emulates other, more tactical first person shooters like Homefront and Battlefield somewhat, while IW likes to keep tight corridors, keeping it to more of an "Arena" style. Because the Battlefield franchise has been "stealing" more and more players from COD ever since BF3 came out, they decided to have Treyarch make the maps even bigger to appeal more to people who favor that style of gameplay.0 -
Meh. I belong to that whole "COD has sucked since COD4" camp. There aren't enough new, innovative features in each release to justify new games, and most everything that IS included just as easily could--and probably SHOULD--be included as a DLC for the last year's game. But because all the lemmings buy it you pretty much have to in order to maintain access to an active playerbase.
I think that Activision more or less just plays you all for fools. Each game is exactly the same. Compare to the Battlefield games. Each one uses an entirely new engine, has greatly improved graphics, and totally new features while still keeping to what makes the games true to the franchise. Activision just repackages a new graphics front end on the same engine and sells you all the same game you already own.
Its because COD used to be a PC game. Unfortunetely now it is a console game which is then ported to PC. Before they went primarily to console there were graphic improvements with each release. But now that consoles are limited to what they can output, they just release the same damn thing with a couple new perks. Unless a new console comes out...
Now with the new consoles coming out it looks like they added a few things to the IW engine. IW6 which is used in Ghosts is the MW3 engine with a couple additions. The top things being HDR lighting, Tessellation, better PhysX support (PC), and SubD. Nothing ground breaking though.
Now.... I bought it for the Xbox last night and watched the kids play it for a couple minutes. Looks the same as the previous version graphics wise. Although playing it on a 360 or PS4 will more than likely look a lot better with those new features of IW6 and increased polygon count. Has anyone got it for PC yet and see if it looks any better there? I'm sure it does.0 -
Meh. I belong to that whole "COD has sucked since COD4" camp. There aren't enough new, innovative features in each release to justify new games, and most everything that IS included just as easily could--and probably SHOULD--be included as a DLC for the last year's game. But because all the lemmings buy it you pretty much have to in order to maintain access to an active playerbase.
I think that Activision more or less just plays you all for fools. Each game is exactly the same. Compare to the Battlefield games. Each one uses an entirely new engine, has greatly improved graphics, and totally new features while still keeping to what makes the games true to the franchise. Activision just repackages a new graphics front end on the same engine and sells you all the same game you already own.
Its because COD used to be a PC game. Unfortunetely now it is a console game which is then ported to PC. Before they went primarily to console there were graphic improvements with each release. But now that consoles are limited to what they can output, they just release the same damn thing with a couple new perks. Unless a new console comes out...
Now with the new consoles coming out it looks like they added a few things to the IW engine. IW6 which is used in Ghosts is the MW3 engine with a couple additions. The top things being HDR lighting, Tessellation, better PhysX support (PC), and SubD. Nothing ground breaking though.
Now.... I bought it for the Xbox last night and watched the kids play it for a couple minutes. Looks the same as the previous version graphics wise. Although playing it on a 360 or PS4 will more than likely look a lot better with those new features of IW6 and increased polygon count. Has anyone got it for PC yet and see if it looks any better there? I'm sure it does.
You hit the nail on the head. COD started out as being a PC game and the reason they got lazy about development was because they switched to making primarily for consoles. Damn console players ruining the franchise for us =P0 -
I wish I had it right now to play! I have had my PS4 preordered for forever and I preordered my hardened edition of Ghosts for my PS4. I wanted it to say PS4 on the box and I didn't want to just upgrade for the digital copy or whatever, but it sucks because now I have to wait!
*waits*0 -
I quite like it but agree with the lack of flow to the levels. The way you buy weapons is vastly improved so you can rock out the better weapons from the start. I also quite enjoy the alien game (whatever it is called)0
