And the reviews are in! CoD: Ghosts sucks!

[Hunter259]

I give it a 3.5/5. Not the biggest things ever, but not shit either. Its cod, its not going to change a whole lot, and after playing bf4 i really didnt see a huge change over bf3. Dont compare the games, they play so different. I Like both and play both almost the same number of hours, (200+hours blops2 lol) they are fun now stop argueing and acting like kids. Man its like the united states government in this thread...

[kuddlesworth9419]

IGN said the game was great but they got paid to say that. The game sucks ass just like all the other COD games before it other then 2.

[legopc]

My Polish friend said "d00d, CoD : Ghosts is beast."

Didn't get to smack sense into him.

He even got it at midnight release.

where does he life... i will kill him 

[TheRuke]

Gotta love TotalBiscuit

[TheRuke]

where does he life... i will kill him 

Do you even life bro?

[flibberdipper]

The first CoD was good. But now, it kind of needs to disappear for 2 years. AT LEAST.

[Deus Ragno]

Whoever said you can't polish a turd were dead wrong. Billions worth of gullible idiots money worth of wrong. They polish and polish this god damn turd every year and they rake in the cash.

[MzCatieB]

why get COD when you can get battlfield... Levelution is new and COD only just got breakable fences and walls...

[Whiskers]

why get COD when you can get battlfield... Levelution is new and COD only just got breakable fences and walls...

 

Levolution is a load of horse manure. There is nothing revolutionary, new or interesting about pre-scripted events - no, they are not physics-based simulations happening in real time, they are animated action sequences which are absolutely identical every single time. Completely predictable, completely boring.

 

Battlefield is supposed to be an awesome game full of massive warfare and physics-simulation based destruction events. Pre-scripted destruction events is unacceptable to me.

[MzCatieB]

Levolution is a load of horse manure. There is nothing revolutionary, new or interesting about pre-scripted events - no, they are not physics-based simulations happening in real time, they are animated action sequences which are absolutely identical every single time. Completely predictable, completely boring.

 

Battlefield is supposed to be an awesome game full of massive warfare and physics-simulation based destruction events. Pre-scripted destruction events is unacceptable to me.

I completely agree, but some base scripting is needed to create Dynamic Levelution.

I think what they did with the Levelution was a step in the right direction and im hoping bf5 will have Dynamic Levelution (More refined and realistic, less annoying)

 

Apex PhysX (in my opinion) is the only way to create Dynamic realistic destruction, its the reason why im trying to get is working fluently in the game im working on.

[Whiskers]

I completely agree, but some base scripting is needed to create Dynamic Levelution.

I think what they did with the Levelution was a step in the right direction and im hoping bf5 will have Dynamic Levelution (More refined and realistic, less annoying)

 

Apex PhysX (in my opinion) is the only way to create Dynamic realistic destruction, its the reason why im trying to get is working fluently in the game im working on.

 

I disagree.

 

They've actually been going backwards ever since Bad Company 2. In BC2 you could destroy damn near every building in every map - in Battlefield 3 you could only destroy a few buildings. In Battlefield 4 they've mostly resorted to entirely pre-scripted events, and frankly they're not even very well scripted. The map where the wall breaks and allows water to come flooding in - it looks awful. As soon as the animation begins for the wall to collapse, the entire wall affected by the animation changes abruptly in colour and the water that streams out of the newly formed hole looks hideously unrealistic.

 

They have taken a massive step backwards, and have done so multiple times across multiple games now. I don't have faith that they will do better with Battlefield 5.

[MzCatieB]

I disagree.

 

They've actually been going backwards ever since Bad Company 2. In BC2 you could destroy damn near every building in every map - in Battlefield 3 you could only destroy a few buildings. In Battlefield 4 they've mostly resorted to entirely pre-scripted events, and frankly they're not even very well scripted. The map where the wall breaks and allows water to come flooding in - it looks awful. As soon as the animation begins for the wall to collapse, the entire wall affected by the animation changes abruptly in colour and the water that streams out of the newly formed hole looks hideously unrealistic.

 

They have taken a massive step backwards, and have done so multiple times across multiple games now. I don't have faith that they will do better with Battlefield 5.

yh... i dont like that they have stepped back in forms of destruction. i would like to see them create a sort of hybrid between Levelution and what they did in bfbc2... thats still a game i play allot these days.

[SteepGnomeKing]

I disagree.

 

They've actually been going backwards ever since Bad Company 2. In BC2 you could destroy damn near every building in every map - in Battlefield 3 you could only destroy a few buildings. In Battlefield 4 they've mostly resorted to entirely pre-scripted events, and frankly they're not even very well scripted. The map where the wall breaks and allows water to come flooding in - it looks awful. As soon as the animation begins for the wall to collapse, the entire wall affected by the animation changes abruptly in colour and the water that streams out of the newly formed hole looks hideously unrealistic.

 

They have taken a massive step backwards, and have done so multiple times across multiple games now. I don't have faith that they will do better with Battlefield 5.

 

I hear this a lot. And I never played BC2 but wouldn't being able to destroy every building, although make sense, ruining ground combat because you wouldn't have any cover to hide in? Than vehicles would be that much stronger because you wouldn't be able to get away from them.

 

I do agree that the destructible sections in BF4 that change the map have horrible animation that don't work together. It is all script and not even a good one. The way the water works in that game it overlaps everything and looks pretty horrible.

[Whiskers]

I hear this a lot. And I never played BC2 but wouldn't being able to destroy every building, although make sense, ruing ground combat because you wouldn't have any cover to hide in? Than vehicles would be that much stronger because you wouldn't be able to get away from them.

 

I do agree that the destructible sections in BF4 that change the map have horrible animation that don't work together. It is all script and not even a good one. The way the water works in that game it overlaps everything and looks pretty horrible.

 

In theory, yes. In practice though it actually worked really well. Destroying buildings wasn't just as simple as throwing a couple grenades at them - it took time and planning to properly destroy them, and the destruction of buildings could be an important tactic. If the enemy team decide to take cover in a building and allow themselves to be surrounded they can be easily eradicated by your team grouping together to destroy the building with C4, RPGs, tanks etc. Or you could concentrate on destroying the building where an MCOM station is located, which takes a lot of time as they're typically stronger than normal buildings. It made it more interesting for defending and neutralizing objectives.

[theABCshop]

[TheProfosist]

Personally I dont compare COD and BF together. The gameplay is completely different. But CoD:Ghosts is really bad, new IW is really bad. The Black Ops series was the best after Cod4, Black ops having best gameplay and Black Ops 2 having best loadout system and mechanics.

I would have to agree with you on this "The Black Ops series was the best after Cod4, Black ops having best gameplay and Black Ops 2 having best loadout system and mechanics."

[RainbowTylernol]

I think Call of Duty bashing is actually more trendy and repetitive than Call of Duty is. You guys are like a cult; banding together to talk about how much you hate that one game you don't like.

It's kind of childish. 

 

/2 cents

[Torand]

 

But in this case its not EA...

[TheProfosist]

Then there's people who review every game with an objective opinion in comparison with the developmental changes between that and its last iteration as well as the progress of its competitors growth.

 

I'd say it's not that CoDG is a bad game, just the level of difference between the last game, (I believe BlOps2?), compared to the changes from BF3 to BF4 is what a lot of people were turned off by. Now on paper if you look at it, it may not be the case, I'm not big on this pesudoshooters, but to me I've played both in the past and battlefield always felt like it had a better game, but lacked in advertising, and now that I feel they stepped it up, in addition to Ghosts short comings with advertising the changes, and some issues they've had with reviews, comes its lack of success.

BF didnt lack advertising its that there was a huge cap from 2142 to Bad Company and they went from being mostly PC to being not able to get a PC version of the game. And with Bad Company 2 it was a port though still a decent game it still before like BF was trying to be COD not BF. That feeling for me carried through to BF3 because you either played a vehicle map or style or one where there were none there wasnt the senselessness of both like in the past. hell even Bad Company 1 did a better job of that. It felt a bit better once they expanded the TDM maps size wise in one of teh updates but I hope BF4 is back to BF2 play style. I dont know if anyone has played them enough to compare if you have please let me know.

Also COD4's launch wasnt all that huge it actually took lots of people months to find out how how good of a game it was. Once it took of though they started putting out a game every year from two different dev's which is when I think everything started going downhill because the next game would always play different than the last. i actually know a good amount of people who skipped black ops because of that. Personally I think they skipped the wrong one they should have skipped MW2 but MW2 bore the same name as COD 4 so...

[Ineko]

I disagree.

 

They've actually been going backwards ever since Bad Company 2. In BC2 you could destroy damn near every building in every map - in Battlefield 3 you could only destroy a few buildings. In Battlefield 4 they've mostly resorted to entirely pre-scripted events, and frankly they're not even very well scripted. The map where the wall breaks and allows water to come flooding in - it looks awful. As soon as the animation begins for the wall to collapse, the entire wall affected by the animation changes abruptly in colour and the water that streams out of the newly formed hole looks hideously unrealistic.

 

They have taken a massive step backwards, and have done so multiple times across multiple games now. I don't have faith that they will do better with Battlefield 5.

 

And good riddance to that destruction model. By the end of the game the maps were usually ruined with people camping in rubble and being impossible to find everywhere, rose-tinted glasses my friend. I do agree that some of the levolution events look pretty bad but I'd still prefer they stick with massive scripted events, but refine them and make them look better.

[TheProfosist]

The first CoD was good. But now, it kind of needs to disappear for 2 years. AT LEAST.

They need to actually create something new and stop riding basically the same game as to me its loosing it flavor which is what i think cause me to stop playing, its too much of the same for too long.

[TopWargamer]

Over 2300 views and I don't even think Linus posted this on his Twitter/Facebook. Guess this is my most viewed thread without "cheating".

[TheProfosist]

I disagree.

 

They've actually been going backwards ever since Bad Company 2. In BC2 you could destroy damn near every building in every map - in Battlefield 3 you could only destroy a few buildings. In Battlefield 4 they've mostly resorted to entirely pre-scripted events, and frankly they're not even very well scripted. The map where the wall breaks and allows water to come flooding in - it looks awful. As soon as the animation begins for the wall to collapse, the entire wall affected by the animation changes abruptly in colour and the water that streams out of the newly formed hole looks hideously unrealistic.

 

They have taken a massive step backwards, and have done so multiple times across multiple games now. I don't have faith that they will do better with Battlefield 5.

yes I agree here Bad Company and Bad Company 2 had it where you could destroy basically everything, which as a sniper I would get screwed over a lot by lol. o I see you sniping in that building there *rifle mounted grenade through the wall*. I was expecting the same thing in BF3 but only certain tings can be broken which I found weird. I dont know i guess i want all or nothing for stuff like that.

I think Call of Duty bashing is actually more trendy and repetitive than Call of Duty is. You guys are like a cult; banding together to talk about how much you hate that one game you don't like.

It's kind of childish. 

 

/2 cents

I dont think there has only been COD bashing going on here if youve been reading the thread...

And good riddance to that destruction model. By the end of the game the maps were usually ruined with people camping in rubble and being impossible to find everywhere, rose-tinted glasses my friend. I do agree that some of the levolution events look pretty bad but I'd still prefer they stick with massive scripted events, but refine them and make them look better.

isnt that what should happen when your throwing grenades and shooting rpg's everywhere?

[Whiskers]

And good riddance to that destruction model. By the end of the game the maps were usually ruined with people camping in rubble and being impossible to find everywhere, rose-tinted glasses my friend. I do agree that some of the levolution events look pretty bad but I'd still prefer they stick with massive scripted events, but refine them and make them look better.

 

I disagree completely. I found that the destruction of buildings made the game much more interesting and lead to some wonderfully emergent gameplay experiences. Battlefield 3 feels like a linear, predictable and utterly soulless beast in comparison.

 

It was not perfect, no. But it was absolutely better in my opinion.

[That Norwegian Guy]

The problem isn't IW the problem is Activsion they kill all there games.

Activision is the worse game puplisher they're 10x worse than EA.

 

 

Ubisoft is worse. But Activision is 2nd worst and pretty much equally terrible.