[AUS] [PC] CoD: Ghosts only $19!

[Psykomantis00]

Alright, this should shut you up. The game runs horribly. My pc is pretty awesome and my internet is baller. 

 

[ericlee30]

Not bad, i'm not much into gohst, but hay its a pretty good deal.

[Trik'Stari]

Well then you'd just have a BF copy-cat. and more FPS??? What do you play on? A console

It's current values is what makes it unique, making them more like Battlefield eliminates the uniqueness and BF would be superior in those areas already. I recon BO:II was done right, really well, also you have to remember that everything that's in the game isn't the most realistic Treyarch/IW/SH could do, if you want a realistic first person shooter than get ARMA. everything that's in the game is there for qa reason, to balance something out, to give gameplay more strategy. 

I don't play on console, I actually like to get value for my money.

I didn't say directly copy battlefield, but they don't even try to compete. As far as I am aware, ghosts is the exact same as mw 1-3 and blop.

 

I bought mw2, WaW, mw3, and Blop, and other than skins and a different campaign, maybe a game mode or two, it's all the same freaking game.

 

Edit: Also, didn't one of the Devs of CoD once claim that anything above 60fps makes a game worse? (or something along those lines) I might be wrong here, just thought I remembered something about that.

[RelentlessAF]

Soz, just a little pissed off atm, I'm sure AW will breathe new light into the CoD franchise to attract more people. 

Wasn't Black Ops 2 also futuristic? If I remember correctly they only tried going into a more futuristic setting because Ghost Recon: Future Soldier was a huge competitor for that very reason. I think the lead developer even said that he was flattered Activision wanted to copy his ideas. In fact they copied a lot of what was in the game as well. That's usually what Call of Duty does for the most part, copy .

[thebennyboy]

They'd have to pay me if they wanted me to play it.

[Almercenary]

Still don't know if it's worf it, but thanks for the heads up. COD is never bloody discounted.

[DIV1D3]

I just installed the game so I could make a video showing you how bad it runs. The game won't even launch. It's so beautiful. The game is so bad it won't even start. 

Well that's because of your system, not because of it being "badly coded".

 

I don't play on console, I actually like to get value for my money.

I didn't say directly copy battlefield, but they don't even try to compete. As far as I am aware, ghosts is the exact same as mw 1-3 and blop.

 

I bought mw2, WaW, mw3, and Blop, and other than skins and a different campaign, maybe a game mode or two, it's all the same freaking game.

 

Edit: Also, didn't one of the Devs of CoD once claim that anything above 60fps makes a game worse? (or something along those lines) I might be wrong here, just thought I remembered something about that.

Do you expect a whole new experience?!?!?! If I didn't know that DICE developed two separate games (BF3 and BF4) MP wise I would think they are the same, just with different maps and maybe guns.

Also he might have been referring to screen tearing.

 

Alright, this should shut you up. The game runs horribly. My pc is pretty awesome and my internet is baller. 

Well, ummm, wow. I have a G3220 which amazingly only costs $60 with 8GB of Corsair Vengeance RAM and a 280X and I only get stuttering (not lag, there's a difference) at the start of the match and the G3220 really does struggle, and keep in mind that I play at 1080p with everything on max (except for AA). Your system must be really poorly optimised or some weird shit because I've only seen you and TB have large stuttering problems all the time. I'll see if I can get MSI Afterburner running and I might be able to record it, or at least give the FPS min and max.

Edit: Ok so I reinstalled MSI Afterburner and I got it running, and turns out even with a $60 CPU I can get butter-smooth gameplay with a minimum of 48 and a max of 57 misread because the number was pretty small, actually was 67. 

 

Not bad, i'm not much into gohst, but hay its a pretty good deal.

Hell yeh, they were all sold out in 20 minutes lol. 

 

Wasn't Black Ops 2 also futuristic? If I remember correctly they only tried going into a more futuristic setting because Ghost Recon: Future Soldier was a huge competitor for that very reason. I think the lead developer even said that he was flattered Activision wanted to copy his ideas. In fact they copied a lot of what was in the game as well. That's usually what Call of Duty does for the most part, copy .

Yes BO:II was set in 2025 with the futuristic missions and then there were the flashback missions that send you into the 1980s. 

[RelentlessAF]

Yes BO:II was set in 2025 with the futuristic missions and then there were the flashback missions that send you into the 1980s. 

I don't see another venture to the future shaking up the community any. Especially with the large split in the gaming community with those that like CoD and those that hate it. It seems to dwindle in numbers with each iteration as well. Seems fitting though not much changes between them and there are other FPS's to play out there. A real change will come when Activision experiences another Guitar Hero fiasco with Call of Duty where people just kind of stop buying each yearly.

[DIV1D3]

I don't see another venture to the future shaking up the community any. Especially with the large split in the gaming community with those that like CoD and those that hate it. It seems to dwindle in numbers with each iteration as well. Seems fitting though not much changes between them and there are other FPS's to play out there. A real change will come when Activision experiences another Guitar Hero fiasco with Call of Duty where people just kind of stop buying each yearly.

Well a new engine, a new dev team and new mechanics is what I think will draw more people in, hopefully. 

[RelentlessAF]

Well a new engine, a new dev team and new mechanics is what I think will draw more people in, hopefully. 

Last time they "innovated" it was all things that were created by CryTek in 2009. However a new engine can only be an improvement, they were the only developer still using the Quake engine. Like seriously, id tech stopped updating it a LONG time ago. For your other two points, it depends on the dev team, a new un-proven dev will turn people away. As far as mechanics go, it would have to be like Half-Life 2 innovative to stand-out in the industry.

[DIV1D3]

Last time they "innovated" it was all things that were created by CryTek in 2009. However a new engine can only be an improvement, they were the only developer still using the Quake engine. Like seriously, id tech stopped updating it a LONG time ago. For your other two points, it depends on the dev team, a new un-proven dev will turn people away. As far as mechanics go, it would have to be like Half-Life 2 innovative to stand-out in the industry.

Well SledgeHammer has already had experience with the CoD franchise, they worked on MW3 to try and push it out on the allocated release date. 

[Trik'Stari]

Well that's because of your system, not because of it being "badly coded".

 

Do you expect a whole new experience?!?!?! If I didn't know that DICE developed two separate games (BF3 and BF4) MP wise I would think they are the same, just with different maps and maybe guns.

Also he might have been referring to screen tearing.

 

Well, ummm, wow. I have a G3220 which amazingly only costs $60 with 8GB of Corsair Vengeance RAM and a 280X and I only get stuttering (not lag, there's a difference) at the start of the match and the G3220 really does struggle, and keep in mind that I play at 1080p with everything on max (except for AA). Your system must be really poorly optimised or some weird shit because I've only seen you and TB have large stuttering problems all the time. I'll see if I can get MSI Afterburner running and I might be able to record it, or at least give the FPS min and max.

Edit: Ok so I reinstalled MSI Afterburner and I got it running, and turns out even with a $60 CPU I can get butter-smooth gameplay with a minimum of 48 and a max of 57 misread because the number was pretty small, actually was 67. 

 

Hell yeh, they were all sold out in 20 minutes lol. 

 

Yes BO:II was set in 2025 with the futuristic missions and then there were the flashback missions that send you into the 1980s. 

If you can't tell the difference between 3 and 4 your not paying attention. The sniping was greatly improved in 4 with the ability to set the zero on the scope as well as 2 magnifications. Not to mention new game modes like carrier assault. The destruction was greatly improved as well. Granted its still the same franchise.

 

I don't expect an entirely new experience game to game, what I do expect is an actual attempt to IMPROVE the game, even somewhat. This, CoD hasn't done. As far as I know they still have the exact same number of people in matches (from bfbc2 to bf3 they went from 32 to 64, at least on pc)

 

The point is, that I, and a lot of people, feel that every single time a "new" cod comes out, the only thing that changes is the number on the box, the name of the game dev, the storyline, whether or not NZ is included, etc.

 

As I said, if they wanted to actually draw people in, come up with something new, or even outdo someone else. Take the fight to Battlefield and come out with 128 person matches or something (granted that would make CoD's voice chat completely unbearable, not to mention matchmaking).

 

They just need to stop being like 90% of companies "YAY we've found a winning product, QUICK, beat it until its dead!"

 

And we battlefield fans haven't been entirely satisfied with b4 over bf3. But at least they're innovating, in 7 days we're getting (I think its this dlc but I could be wrong) riot shields for the first time (at least that I've ever seen). The point is, they actually, TRY to come up with something new, look at hardline, I played the beta and I gotta say I'm stoked for it. Granted its the same engine and for the most part the same weapons, but it still felt miles different from the standard battlefield game. Although I partially expect them to do what battlefield has always done, and completely fumble the launch (which it seems most devs do these days)

[Trik'Stari]

Nevermind this, thought the new dlc was out, it's just an update

[RelentlessAF]

-snip-

Was 100% agreeing with you until you mentioned Hardline, what a huge exploit of people for money. It's definitely a DLC and not a full game but EA has tried to sell less before.

[RelentlessAF]

Well SledgeHammer has already had experience with the CoD franchise, they worked on MW3 to try and push it out on the allocated release date. 

MW3 isn't a good portfoilio. I have a hard time looking at that and MW2 and telling the difference. Extremely similar. MW3 and MW2 are like Gears of War: Judgement and Gears of War 3. Pretty much the same game with new maps and a few changes.

[DIV1D3]

MW3 isn't a good portfoilio. I have a hard time looking at that and MW2 and telling the difference. Extremely similar. MW3 and MW2 are like Gears of War: Judgement and Gears of War 3. Pretty much the same game with new maps and a few changes.

I'm just saying they have experience, and I don't think MW3 was bad at all, imo MW3 and MW2 look quite different, just look at the guns that were kept in, and Terminal in each, there is a huge visual difference between them. 

[Trik'Stari]

Was 100% agreeing with you until you mentioned Hardline, what a huge exploit of people for money. It's definitely a DLC and not a full game but EA has tried to sell less before.

Then wait for the price to drop, I can understand how you feel though. It does feel like a new game to me though. I think it has ample opportunity for new game modes (I would really love to see something oriented to car chases with shooting, think nfs most wanted pursuit escape, but with your friends in the car shooting back at the cops, which would be fucking amazingly fun)

 

Edit: Also, in the interest of being honest and open, I DO think that World at War was one of the best ww2 shooters of all time. I did love that game for the nazi zombies and the fun as fuck campaign. I'm the type of person that doesn't generally devote my time to achievements (when I was on 360, long ago, I had roughly a 70000 gamerscore, and 100% in less than 10 games) and that was one of the few games I made a point of beating on every difficulty, I would still go back and do the reichstag level just because it was fun.

[RelentlessAF]

-snip-

Personally I prefer Call of Duty 2. In my opinion that was the last good Call of Duty game. World at War didn't appeal to me very much and zombies isn't really my thing but I can see why others would like the game.

[RelentlessAF]

I'm just saying they have experience, and I don't think MW3 was bad at all, imo MW3 and MW2 look quite different, just look at the guns that were kept in, and Terminal in each, there is a huge visual difference between them. 

Having played them on console I can tell you in that aspect they weren't. Maybe in the PC version, my Dad made it a point to buy each game when they came out and play them with me. I've probably put at least 100 hours into each and I still probably couldn't tell you a difference if given side by side screen shots. It was actually like that for BF4 when it was coming out. Videos I saw of it I thought were just BF3 expansion pack videos.

[DIV1D3]

Having played them on console I can tell you in that aspect they weren't. Maybe in the PC version, my Dad made it a point to buy each game when they came out and play them with me. I've probably put at least 100 hours into each and I still probably couldn't tell you a difference if given side by side screen shots. It was actually like that for BF4 when it was coming out. Videos I saw of it I thought were just BF3 expansion pack videos.

So between these two images you'd have a hard time telling which is MW3 and which is MW2??

[Psykomantis00]

Well that's because of your system, not because of it being "badly coded".

 

Do you expect a whole new experience?!?!?! If I didn't know that DICE developed two separate games (BF3 and BF4) MP wise I would think they are the same, just with different maps and maybe guns.

Also he might have been referring to screen tearing.

 

Well, ummm, wow. I have a G3220 which amazingly only costs $60 with 8GB of Corsair Vengeance RAM and a 280X and I only get stuttering (not lag, there's a difference) at the start of the match and the G3220 really does struggle, and keep in mind that I play at 1080p with everything on max (except for AA). Your system must be really poorly optimised or some weird shit because I've only seen you and TB have large stuttering problems all the time. I'll see if I can get MSI Afterburner running and I might be able to record it, or at least give the FPS min and max.

Edit: Ok so I reinstalled MSI Afterburner and I got it running, and turns out even with a $60 CPU I can get butter-smooth gameplay with a minimum of 48 and a max of 57 misread because the number was pretty small, actually was 67. 

 

Hell yeh, they were all sold out in 20 minutes lol. 

 

Yes BO:II was set in 2025 with the futuristic missions and then there were the flashback missions that send you into the 1980s. 

 

 

I have no issues running any other game. My system is solid. The game is shit. It's poorly optimized and runs like shit. I'm clearly not the only person having this issue. Games crap, deal with it. There is no reason for the game to run as poorly as it does. 

[DIV1D3]

I have no issues running any other game. My system is solid. The game is shit. It's poorly optimized and runs like shit. I'm clearly not the only person having this issue. Games crap, deal with it. There is no reason for the game to run as poorly as it does. 

Well it's obviously not the game as I don't have any issues, same with another 2 of my friends and 3 other people I know (also two of them play on a laptop, and they aren't an Apache Pro or anything). 

[Maslofski]

overpriced!

[DIV1D3]

overpriced!

>.>

[Psykomantis00]

If you can't tell the difference between 3 and 4 your not paying attention. The sniping was greatly improved in 4 with the ability to set the zero on the scope as well as 2 magnifications. Not to mention new game modes like carrier assault. The destruction was greatly improved as well. Granted its still the same franchise.

 

I don't expect an entirely new experience game to game, what I do expect is an actual attempt to IMPROVE the game, even somewhat. This, CoD hasn't done. As far as I know they still have the exact same number of people in matches (from bfbc2 to bf3 they went from 32 to 64, at least on pc)

 

The point is, that I, and a lot of people, feel that every single time a "new" cod comes out, the only thing that changes is the number on the box, the name of the game dev, the storyline, whether or not NZ is included, etc.

 

As I said, if they wanted to actually draw people in, come up with something new, or even outdo someone else. Take the fight to Battlefield and come out with 128 person matches or something (granted that would make CoD's voice chat completely unbearable, not to mention matchmaking).

 

They just need to stop being like 90% of companies "YAY we've found a winning product, QUICK, beat it until its dead!"

 

And we battlefield fans haven't been entirely satisfied with b4 over bf3. But at least they're innovating, in 7 days we're getting (I think its this dlc but I could be wrong) riot shields for the first time (at least that I've ever seen). The point is, they actually, TRY to come up with something new, look at hardline, I played the beta and I gotta say I'm stoked for it. Granted its the same engine and for the most part the same weapons, but it still felt miles different from the standard battlefield game. Although I partially expect them to do what battlefield has always done, and completely fumble the launch (which it seems most devs do these days)

 

The problem I have with COD (when it works) is that they never fix anything. They keep trying to change core gameplay mechanics subtly but they never fix the main issues that have been around since the beginning of the game. I'm pretty sure they either don't know how or maybe don't care. The constant lag in games due to other players having a shitty connection. One player shouldn't affect the entire game. The player side host sharing that COD uses is lame. Dedicated servers should at least be an option. Fix the spawning. The way players spawn in COD is absolutely terrible, especially on smaller maps. I couldn't count the times I've spawned next to an enemy or within 3 seconds getting killed by someone spawning behind me. Another thing is the whole 420quickscope360blaze it bullshit. Quick scoping is only enabled by plebs. Turn off auto aim and the amount of "trick shots" would drop. 

 

Instead of fixing any of that they revamp the perks and class building every game.