Activision's CEO Hints at more Historical Call of Duty Settings

[Guest]

Quote

 Last year's release, Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare, took the battle to space for the first time, and the new direction prompted mixed reaction from fans of the series

Personally I thought that the space turn would be very cool. I pre-ordered Infinite Warfare in hopes for an epic campaign. (However I never played it because the order just disappeared from amazon and paypal. I have no idea...)

Quote

For fans who prefer the more classic, grounded Call of Duty, this year's Call of Duty: WW2 seems to be offering a solution.

Quote

internally, the feeling was right that it was time to "return to [the series'] roots" by bringing the games back to their original setting.

I think it's refreshing to experience a new WW2 game. There are so many battles that haven't been created in FPS games (or for a long time) that would be exceptionally exciting to experience. 

Quote

He also briefly touches on the possibility of Call of Duty's evolution from a yearly franchise into a game-as-service model (as utilised by games such as Destiny).

I think this would be appreciated by those tired of spending 60 dollars EVERY YEAR on new games. Personally I mostly wait for summer and winter sales on steam to buy new games. In the summer 90~% of games are on sale for their lowest prices, and in the winter I usually get a steam gift card for Christmas so I can pick up a large sum of games. 50 USD can score me like 12 games sometimes. 60 can get me a potentially buggy experience I may not enjoy as much. I have a short attention span for games, so I usually play the first 5% of games before getting bored of it. 

 

This also makes a great deal for history buffs that want battles in WW2 that weren't included in the base game, and hope for more single-player experiences post launch without another 60 dollars. 

Quote

He's more firm, however, on the prospect of future historical games, citing the "very rich territory"

Moving forward I think it would be a lot of fun to experience wars like the Spanish American War, French/Russian/American Revolution first hand from a professional AAA developer. The experiences, battles, and conflict that occurred is unthinkable compared to WW2 in some cases. Even a Korean War (Super forgotten AMIRITE?) would be excruciating. WW1 was intense, however the Korean War was the first Guerrilla war, with environments ranging from Jungle Valleys to Frozen Mountaintops. Personifying these harsh realities with the gritty nature Call of Duty first set out to do would be very honorable to the veterans forgotten. (There's a Korean War memorial in Boston I highly recommend as there's 6~ voice recordings of veterans speaking of their experiences.)

 

I have High Hopes for Call of Duty and their plans for future plans to create harsh stories based on previous wars. Personally I thought Battlefield One was a poor portrayal of WW1, however I haven't played all the campaign missions. In my experience the missions weren't fun, and the game felt too arcade-like. If the CEO is serious about going hardcore into harsh realities of war, the company will recieve a lot of positive recognition. It won't be another 6 days in Falluja since the last recorded/known WW1 veteran died several years ago. (2010 or 2011?) 

 

What do you think? 

Are you excited for Call of Duty to get "Great Again?"

Do you like more arcade like experiences, or hardcore stories of authentic war?

Do you think Activision will make single player levels as DLC for WW2 as implied by his statement?

 

SOURCE:

IGN 

http://www.ign.com/g00/articles/2017/09/05/activisions-ceo-hints-at-more-historical-call-of-duty-settings?i10c.referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

 

First tech news article. Rechecked my formatting before posting. No one posted about this before I started typing. 

Edited September 7, 2017 by iamdarkyoshi
Fixed quotes for night theme users

[Syntaxvgm]

3 minutes ago, fpo said:

 

Are you excited for Call of Duty to get "Great Again?"

 

The good Call of Duties, 1, 2, 4 and partly mw2 were all made by the original infinity ward, which is now respawn. (I would love titan fall without the titans, pretty crisp gameplay)

 

And no, Black Ops was not good in terms of what COD was, it was completely different. 

[79wjd]

I would buy the shit out of a US Civil War CoD.

 

Just now, Syntaxvgm said:

And no, Black Ops was not good. 

Yes it was. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

While I like the return to WWII, it's annoying that they keep focusing on the European front. Few games seem to want to touch the Pacific front (and yes, I know there's World at War).

[Jito463]

2 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

(and yes, I know there's World at War).

Honestly, World at War is the only CoD game I've ever played, and I wasn't impressed.  I bought it on a sale just to see what it was like, and it did nothing to inspire me to play other CoD games.  I can't even recall what my complaints about it were, it's seemingly that forgettable.

[Syntaxvgm]

48 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I would buy the shit out of a US Civil War CoD.

 

Yes it was. 

First COD without custom maps and mods on PC even though it was promised multiple times. I believe they didn't have the rights to the shitty flame and smoke effect thing... I think.

Here's a few reasons I think BO was the start of COD changing, not that it had no good qualities or features. 

 

Multiplayer maps broke from IWs design principle of square like maps, cluster zone in the middle, 2 ways to get around. Nuketown is one of the few exceptions, though the principals apply loosely in such a close range map. There's more to it then that, but as someone who enjoyed making my own COD2 and 4 maps in the past, map layout was my primary focus and with so many user made maps, I got to try almost every layout conceivable. You need 3 or more (not too many, odd number is probably best) routes to each objective for objective based modes like CTF, and two of them need to provide reasonable cover/medium range combat while the middle should be exposed somewhat. Limit vertical gameplay on at least part of the map (this is why favela was the worst mw2 map) and keep designs rectangular or boomarang shaped. This helps with modes like domination, and in general a square design focusing on keeping the sides even for general shape helped keep things fair. Black ops broke with that on some maps, and it continued to get worse from there. Some MW3 maps were triangular I think. 

Here's backlot from cod4 

Here's Cracked from black ops

here's a better black ops map, launch, which more closely follows this 

Gun balancing-

Bullet sponging was a huge thing in black ops. It may have been a good or bad thing, but it certainly changed the direction of COD. In MW2, 2 shots to the head or torso with most guns always killed. bolts? One shot or 2 with silencer (even in the head). Handgun? 2 Shots, head or torso. LMG? 2 shots. Smg? 2 shots. Go try it. What made the guns different was how they behaved. I could destroy with an m9 because I liked the sound and the sights, but it wasn't effective further away. That's the thing though, the balancing was all an illusion. If you used whatever gun you liked, range was the only factor. Whoever aimed right and shot first won the firefight. 

In black ops, you absorb a lot of bullets. There was a lot more to what gun was actually better. Remember people bitching over and over until they nerfed guns like the ak74u? It wasn't too powerful, it was less weak than the others. The guns were too different. This isn't battlefield, this is call of duty, guns are lasers and the first one to shoot wins. It's not about tactics. 

Also with the gun balance, it was actually possible at closer-medium range the person who aimed and shot first would would loose if the other person was not aiming down the sights, because the flinch from the bullet sponging would cause somone using ADS to miss and the hip firing person would have a larger spread, not pulling the whole spread away from their target with flinch.

There was also a distance effect on damage, I don't believe was in mw2 or cod4. I think it was just good old COD bullet cones. 

Speaking of this game really encouraged corner camping. The perks, devices, all encouraged it. Not to mention adding a KD ratio in the main score, all people cared about, no matter how boring they played. (I want an average of 3 kills per death overall not go and try to get a match every now and then where I get a nuke)

 

The frame rate on the ps3 was terrible not a consistent 60 fps like previous CODs. No, it wasn't bf3's 20 fps, but it was bad

This part is largely taste, less important difference-

Gun sounds were important too. 3arc tries to be more 'realistic', but ends up with guns sounding hollow and all similar. Though often you can identify the individual guns after playing longer (not as easily as IW games) gun sounds are more important than one might think. Believe it or not, gun sounds affect balance. 3arc had the right idea here somewhat, because if you give 2 guns with equal sights and stats, the one with a more satisfying sound to players on average will win. I've seen this time and time again with mods that change sounds. I hated a lot of the gun sounds in COD2, like the gewer, but with a new sound I used it more and I was more effective with it, however COD2 had team weapons unless it was a mod like extreme+. Anyway none of the sounds 3arc uses are fun, just hollow gun sounds. IW gun sounds are stupid, unique, and you'll find one you like. We all know the deagle sound. We all know the Intervention. Since you can chose any gun on either side, sounds being the same doesn't matter, and their approach is more fun IMO

 

Oh and all of their extra game modes were stolen from the CS and COD modding communities. 

 

Single player was pretty alright. (a main character that talks????) Zombies was fun too. 

[KenjiUmino]

27 minutes ago, fpo said:

I think it's refreshing to experience a new WW2 game. There are so many battles that haven't been created in FPS games (or for a long time) that would be exceptionally exciting to experience.

they would have to get creative to make another WW2 game that still feels fresh.

the most poplular battles have been beaten to death already. 

 

34 minutes ago, fpo said:

I think this would be appreciated by those tired of spending 60 dollars EVERY YEAR on new games. 

game-as-a-service? oh that would be great.  

instead of spending a whopping $60 every year on a game that feels like a repaint of the previous, you can get a half baked single player episode and a new weapon skin every month for the low subscription fee of only $9.99. 

 

seriously now, i think monthly subscriptions and selling a game as single episodes is BS. i don't like it and i try to avoid such games when i can. 

 

43 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I would buy the shit out of a US Civil War CoD.

well, i would be interested in a game that covers the US civil war... but not if it's CoD ... 

 

[ravenshrike]

The idea that GAAS would be cheaper than standalone is ludicrous, especially with the existence oh so lovable microtransactions.

[EnergyEclipse]

I've never understood what the introduction of exo suits/space battles was so posed to bring to the series.

 

You have a groundbreaking blockbuster series, with no explanation required for the reasons behind the successes of each game, but then you go and add 'Exo-suits'? Why?

 

I am all up for them reinnovating gameplay mechanics, but seriously what were they meant to add, considering the success was based on boots on groud action? 

 

Advanced Warfare and Infinite Warfare to me could have actually been a reasonably good titles by themselves, but I don't believe either should ever have received a Call of Duty badge when we compare it to the rest of the series of that makes sense. 

 

 

 

 

[bcredeur97]

9 hours ago, KenjiUmino said:

well, i would be interested in a game that covers the US civil war... but not if it's CoD ... 

a civil war game would be pretty dangerous to release right now. 

 

could end badly if you do 1 thing wrong. would be very easy to cause a public outrage.

[Paranoid Kami]

I have no interest in the WW2 setting. I prefer modern combat. I liked MW1 a lot, but never really liked any of their other games. After liking MW1 so much I expected them to release games like that and kept on buying their games for a few years, but I'm older now and I won't waste my money on things I don't like as easily as I used to. It's the same as how I like Battlefield 4 over 1.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

The good Call of Duties, 1, 2, 4 and partly mw2 were all made by the original infinity ward, which is now respawn. (I would love titan fall without the titans, pretty crisp gameplay)

I haven't played Titanfall, but I hear excellent things from Titanfall 2 including it's low playerbase. From my experiences, MW2 was THE most appreciated and appraised CoD of all time. It was pre-ordered so much some stores stopped accepting pre-orders. 

11 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

I would buy the shit out of a US Civil War CoD.

CoD has solid gameplay, and if they REALLY put their minds to it, they could make a phenomenal US Civil War game. 

11 hours ago, Abyssal Radon said:

All of the Call of Duties have been good, in their own rights. Now, my favorite one is Modern Warfare 2 like of all time. As far as Infinite Warfare goes, the campaign was actually the only decent part, but the online multiplayer fell short. However Modern Warfare remastered was awesome, because it's Modern Warfare with a fresh coat of paint and Modern Warfare was and still is awesome to play. The upcoming WW2 CoD looks promising, and can't wait to get my hands on a copy. 

The core game-play is gold. I love MW2's campaign as the Veteran difficulty is expertly tuned on PC. Some parts are BS but that's because of level design in connecting areas. 

I've noticed discussion of the brilliance of IW's C-pain but it was met with mass distrust when the initial trailer revealed. CoD 4 was a lot of fun, but the infinite re-spawning was a bit tedious. I disliked WaW for the same reason. Some parts are uber hard when there's an unlimited wall of enemies coming. (Like D-Day in Cod 2.)

11 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

While I like the return to WWII, it's annoying that they keep focusing on the European front. Few games seem to want to touch the Pacific front (and yes, I know there's World at War).

One of my hopes for a Korean War game. It may not be Pacific WW2, but with all the fresh content available (jungles to snowy mountains) there's a lot to endure. When's the last time you played a B.A. snow level? Jack and Daxter The Precursor Legacy remake on PS3? And for the jungles... Black Ops was a huge let down for a knees in the dirt fear fest of Viet-Congs (Hope that's not a racist term) in the jungles. Yeah there were 1-2~ levels of jungles but... It wasn't THAT good imo. Just a generic woods mission. (no pun intended)

11 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Honestly, World at War is the only CoD game I've ever played, and I wasn't impressed.  I bought it on a sale just to see what it was like, and it did nothing to inspire me to play other CoD games.  I can't even recall what my complaints about it were, it's seemingly that forgettable.

Thinking back yeah, WAW wasn't the BEST CoD, and with many major publishers exporting replica of CoD gameplay it can seem like another generic FPS. If you get into the story for the Modern Warfare series, it's really cool IMO. All my friends loved it. 

11 hours ago, huilun02 said:

I don't like CoD, but I will buy if they include the battle of Kursk/Prokhorovka

Yes it has to be that particular battle

If they don't include it protest to CoD saying "You were going to make DLC campaign... MAKE KURST/PROKHOROVKA BLYATT!!!!"

10 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

snip

First, long reply

Second First, excellent analysis of change in game design. I didn't play multiplayer too much as I sucked at it, but my brother played these ALL the time in multiplayer. I did notice a bit of a change in "bullet sponginess" after a while. Most complaints were MW2 network code sucking (or he just is bad)

I think you're saying in your analysis that you like when in CoD multiplayer there is a short time to kill, and when the levels are designed in a 3 lane system (Like League of Legends has 3 major pathways) but dislike when it takes a long time to kill AND there's a million pathways.

To compare a youtuber called Favyn did a few videos talking about sprint in Halo. He covered the idea that halo is based around slow movement, and long times to kill. When the players have a lot of health and become low, it's irritating for said victim to just be able to slip through your fingers because the levels weren't designed to accommodate it. Throwing in a feature such as this was distasteful, and broke the flow of the original concepts. (Favyn's channel page)

The frame rates sucking does suck. I played more on 360, but I did get Black Ops, and Black Ops 2 on PS3. I didn't notice too much, but I was a peasant, and conditioned to horrid FPS so I cannot make too much comment on my experiences. 

The thing with CoD devs stealing Counter-Strike, and modders' gameplay ideas is a sad thing, however companies like Blizzard just own your mods. The Warcraft 3, or Starcraft Map Editor requires you to upload your maps to their website before you can use them, and by doing so they own ALL rights to your creations. It's a bit scum, but it's a free market. 

Singleplayer Campaigns are fun to me. I also enjoy the Spec ops missions, and thought the spec ops survival in MW3 was tons of fun. My friend and I played that SOOOO much. We got really good at it on that british level. Underpass? Also zombies is fun too but when first introduced I was a bit scared of it haha. Still had a huge fear of zombies, and monsters depicted in media. Yet it's very fun with friends. I played a short bit of the Black Ops 3 Campaign Zombies however it wasn't that fun to me. 

10 hours ago, KenjiUmino said:

they would have to get creative to make another WW2 game that still feels fresh.

the most poplular battles have been beaten to death already. 

instead of spending a whopping $60 every year on a game that feels like a repaint of the previous, you can get a half baked single player episode and a new weapon skin every month for the low subscription fee of only $9.99. 

well, i would be interested in a game that covers the US civil war... but not if it's CoD ... 

They would have to be really creative to make a fresh WW2 game. A great one I want is Medal of Honor Airbourne. I played the demo and loved it. Hell's Highway had some great recognition as well. There was a third popular WW2 series but I cannot recall the title. (Not battlefield.)

Haha, this isn't EA, but they did put dabbing into an FPS. And add multiplayer SMGs to BO2 for like 10 dollars. 

I'd appreciate a good US civil war game, however I had played one. Or the demo... It was atrocious. Days of Defeat or something? (Can't remember. Long story short it sucked. You went back in time to many major battles but the core game mechanics were just REALLY bad. It came out about the time of the Wolfenstein before the new order.)

I think the Spanish American war would be a really cool game though. There's a number of interesting things and not much known of it. What better way to teach the modern people than through a 60 dollar disk where the right trigger is the best button?

10 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

The idea that GAAS would be cheaper than standalone is ludicrous, especially with the existence oh so lovable microtransactions.

GAAS? I don't know that abbreviation. The CEO noted a plan similar to Destiny. People seemed satisfied with the large content additions as done by destiny, but I doubt there'll be a hub where you can dance on telephone poles when Patton needs you at the bulge. 

4 hours ago, EnergyEclipse said:

I've never understood what the introduction of exo suits/space battles was so posed to bring to the series.

 

You have a groundbreaking blockbuster series, with no explanation required for the reasons behind the successes of each game, but then you go and add 'Exo-suits'? Why?

 

I am all up for them reinnovating gameplay mechanics, but seriously what were they meant to add, considering the success was based on boots on groud action? 

 

Advanced Warfare and Infinite Warfare to me could have actually been a reasonably good titles by themselves, but I don't believe either should ever have received a Call of Duty badge when we compare it to the rest of the series of that makes sense. 

I think they wanted to prepare to make the series fresh before it completely burned out all customers. I was done with call of duty around Black ops. I played all major releases on console starting with CoD 2. (Didn't play Big red one.)

The cinematic turn with the Modern Warfare series should have been a 1 and done when all loose ends were tied (also the name of a mission) but as most major media in the masses it gets boiled down to the explosions and overly dramatic emotion ignoring the idea that there has to be pre-text in order for things to be dramatic. 

I didn't play Advanced Warfare, nor Infinite warfare to comment appropriately, but from the Warfare part of the title, I believe them to be continuations of the Modern Warfare time-line. Without price though... is it even worth it?

1 hour ago, bcredeur97 said:

a civil war game would be pretty dangerous to release right now. 

 

could end badly if you do 1 thing wrong. would be very easy to cause a public outrage.

How is that? I don't think the people believing the civil war to be going on today to make much of a difference in the modern mindset of the majority of major news outlets, and social media influencers. 

IMO Battlefield one sucked, but was met with great praise even though Verdun came out before Battlefield One, and is a much better representation of the war from my understanding of the war. 

30 minutes ago, Paranoid Kami said:

I have no interest in the WW2 setting. I prefer modern combat. I liked MW1 a lot, but never really liked any of their other games. After liking MW1 so much I expected them to release games like that and kept on buying their games for a few years, but I'm older now and I won't waste my money on things I don't like as easily as I used to. It's the same as how I like Battlefield 4 over 1.

I completely understand. Modern combat games are tons of fun. Though I'm personally more of a BF 3 kinda guy, it'd be cool to get modern age games like 6 days in Falluja, or a Battlefield game where you can ACTUALLY BREAK THE F-ING BUILDINGSS!!!!!!!!!

Urban combat is a lot of fun to me in video games, and airsoft. I actually hate playing arma in huge woods, or airsoft in woods. I love Rainbow Six Siege because of the neat structures, and modernish equipment available and destruction capabilities. It's probably my favorite game atm. 

[8uhbbhu8]

Yay!!!!! I have played most of the series and hated almost all of it  Only one's I actually really liked were the 2 original WW2 games and up to COD 4. MOD WAR 1 was pretty ok and I thought it was better then it could have been but still could have been far better (Considering the games after it I consider the start of the downfall of COD it was damn good for its time)

[TheUzu]

Should make a Napolonic Wars game and even have a side mission where the USA stabs you in the back in 1812.

 

The worst conflict after the World Wars in the west at least has to be the Crimean War, that could make a good game I'd imagine.

[Syntaxvgm]

1 hour ago, fpo said:

 

First, long reply

Second First, excellent analysis of change in game design. I didn't play multiplayer too much as I sucked at it, but my brother played these ALL the time in multiplayer. I did notice a bit of a change in "bullet sponginess" after a while. Most complaints were MW2 network code sucking (or he just is bad)

I think you're saying in your analysis that you like when in CoD multiplayer there is a short time to kill, and when the levels are designed in a 3 lane system (Like League of Legends has 3 major pathways) but dislike when it takes a long time to kill AND there's a million pathways.

To compare a youtuber called Favyn did a few videos talking about sprint in Halo. He covered the idea that halo is based around slow movement, and long times to kill. When the players have a lot of health and become low, it's irritating for said victim to just be able to slip through your fingers because the levels weren't designed to accommodate it. Throwing in a feature such as this was distasteful, and broke the flow of the original concepts. (Favyn's channel page)

The frame rates sucking does suck. I played more on 360, but I did get Black Ops, and Black Ops 2 on PS3. I didn't notice too much, but I was a peasant, and conditioned to horrid FPS so I cannot make too much comment on my experiences. 

The thing with CoD devs stealing Counter-Strike, and modders' gameplay ideas is a sad thing, however companies like Blizzard just own your mods. The Warcraft 3, or Starcraft Map Editor requires you to upload your maps to their website before you can use them, and by doing so they own ALL rights to your creations. It's a bit scum, but it's a free market. 

Singleplayer Campaigns are fun to me. I also enjoy the Spec ops missions, and thought the spec ops survival in MW3 was tons of fun. My friend and I played that SOOOO much. We got really good at it on that british level. Underpass? Also zombies is fun too but when first introduced I was a bit scared of it haha. Still had a huge fear of zombies, and monsters depicted in media. Yet it's very fun with friends. I played a short bit of the Black Ops 3 Campaign Zombies however it wasn't that fun to me. 

 

I never played the BO3 campaign, heard it sucked, I think I stopped playing mostly after mw3, I just gave up for the MP side of it. 

On the MW2 netcode, if memory serves me correctly, it was pretty good (hitboxes, tickrate matched framerate, consistent) with a couple of major problems. One of these was the host advantage. I do believe anti-lag or 'lag compensation' as we know it now was introduced back in the 1.3 COD4 PC patch, or at least became default. I do believe it works largely the same in MW2, but the system I know about for COD4 focuses on ping to host differences, adjusts, and host can limit ping of those who join (Was always an option). This could create the effect that you shot first on your screen but your shots didn't even register on the killcam. Remember, the killcam is the same as a demo file, which record the actions of all players and the reproduces the match when played back, often used to report cheaters to server admins on PC, it's NOT what they saw, rather what the server executed. (The movie mode or whatever adding in later CODs just took this feature and added a gui for it)

Now, on console MW2, I seriously have my doubts they changed it. The PC version was meant to see difference between pings from a dedicated server, and if they copy pasted it, on a p2p match would mean the host player would always be the best ping to the host- they are the host! It would make sense if they did copy paste it, COD was always the same exact files platform to platform, and there was even an exploit that allowed people to execute console commands by sticking them in the save file on ps3 cod4 for a time. (sure people were flying around, but I just had fun lowering a few settings like AA and running the game in actual 1080p and turning off that god damn cheap DOF effect)

Anyway on COD4 1.3+, I think the slight advantage was given to players with better connection to the dedicated server. Why reward players for bad ping? But, it still helped those with bad connections over nothing at all. 

I don't think BO changed this. I think it just gave the advantage to players with bad ping. I see a lot of complaints about modern COD seem to be in consensus it started with BO, in fact many people think it was introduced in BO. I remember shooting shooting me around corners in BO, as that's where I was on their screens. IIRC, the good old ping bars (instead of the actual number you got on PC) were useless- less than 100 ping meant all 4 bars.

I'm not sure I'm remember right, but I see this chart a couple of places online

Quote

4 bars = 0-100ms
3 bars = 100-200ms
2 bars = 200-300ms
1 bar = 300+ms

100 ping is on the borderline of acceptable IMO, and I've had 75-100 affect me on bolts servers on PC. Anyway console players have such bad ping, and they set up matchmaking to be automatic, they had to hide that somehow. 

In MW3 it just got stronger, and it also had netcode problems that were unrelated. The idea on BO and post BO was to line up everything you saw on your screen if you had bad ping, and avoid the host advantage people complained about in MW2 so much it actually punished you for being host. 

Back to MW2. Since I lived in a good spot with a  good connection, had an open NAT, and knew how to port forward a few things, I was host more often than not. I felt the host advantage. I destroyed people because my screen always lined up. It's hard to quantify this much, as MW2 killed dedicated servers on PC which made it work like on console anyway, and I hardly played PC much as a result. I did whoever player AlterIW for the short glorious time that was a thing, and I did notice an immediate difference with dedicated servers, felt more like COD4 PC....fair.

On black ops on ps3, I purposely made my nat type strict, stopped being host, and instantly had a better time hitting things. 

 

So there's the history of what I know on it. It's interesting because netcode is a catch all word players like to use for size and shape of hitboxes, registration of hits, and  who's takes priority, but it's a series of complicated issues that are really hard to get right. While the entire COD community complains that there's too much compensation and they think MW2 was the best at this, the overwatch community thinks it's too much like Mw2. I don't play OW, I cannot comment on this. 

https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/overwatch/topic/17613153127

I will say this though- long gone are the days dedicated servers, people aiming ahead to compensate (I was really good at that) and some people with lag switches to throw people like me off by suddenly changing their connection and, if the game was really exploitable, being basically invulnerable. 

There's a comment on that thread that I really like 

Quote

Favor the Shooter is the standard in all modern FPS now. The alternative is basically to have the appearance of garbage hit detection, where your shots miss because you're aiming at where you think they are, not where the server thinks they are. If you're not favoring the shooter, then a lot of on-target shots are going to miss, because where the target is on your screen is not really where the target actually is. That guy that shot you around the corner? On his screen you weren't around the corner yet. That's why he could hit you.

If they instead opted to favor the target and not the shooter, yes you'd be safe around your corner and you wouldn't be complaining about dying around corners. What you would be complaining about instead is how many headshots you were cheated out of when your crosshairs were directly on the enemy and the game said you missed.

The idea of lag compensation as it exists now is to build the game for people sitting on their couch, playing the game casually, with no appreciation for how connections work. It's more the immediate feel of "did your shots hit where you placed them" than "are they really there". It no longer matters if they are really there to the server or host connection, to you they are therefore you can hit them. They don't want the player to know if there's a serious lag problem, they try to hide it by favoring the shooter. Favor the shooter works really well in like sub 50 ping- you won't have time difference to be around the corner most of the time, but 50 ms of movement is enough to miss. But oh no we gotta define 100+ ping as great, and 199 is still '3 bars' lol. FPS games are just...casual now. 

 

BTW I don't really play CSGO much but I'm pretty sure it's one of the few games these days that just does it traditionally and naturally, then does a straight forward layer of lag compensation to be shooter advantage, but still allows for ping advantage. You will get shot around corners, but all of your shots will connect on your screen- IF the server sees you shoot first, this is the key difference- just shot placement not shot timing. I don't hear much complaint about that and it seems to work competitively...but ping rates are more transparent and generally lower here...dedicated servers too....so idk

Think this guy just superimposed his view with the spectator view. I would love to do this with all of the COD games and maybe some BF games to see whats really going on. 

 

[Doobeedoo]

I like futuristic warfare like AW and IW though I get many wanted back to old settings too. Though everyone was getting sick of those back in the day so modern setting got more popular. 

Now there will be WWII so good for a change once again I guess. 

[PlayStation 2]

"Call of Duty: 9/11"

[ravenshrike]

11 hours ago, fpo said:

GAAS? I don't know that abbreviation. The CEO noted a plan similar to Destiny. People seemed satisfied with the large content additions as done by destiny, but I doubt there'll be a hub where you can dance on telephone poles when Patton needs you at the bulge. 

SAAS = Software As A Service. GAAS is thus Games As A Service. While it works for Destiny(Which it really doesn't, see Destiny 2. If it really were the Games As A Service model the previous content would have been ported to the new engine and it would have continued flawlessly.) it will work shittier for CoD if it works at all since WWII is inherently significantly more constrained in variety than something like Destiny.

[Syntaxvgm]

1 hour ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

"Call of Duty: 9/11"

That's horrible. 

The second tower would be DLC. 

[Jito463]

11 hours ago, S.Stephenson said:

Should make a Napolonic Wars game

Yeah, I'm sure that would sell well.  Everyone running around online, spending a good minute between shots to load the ball and powder.  

[FloRolf]

I really wonder how far into the development of 'CoD to infinity and beyond warfare' they were when battlefield 1 launched and they had to make a new game, lol. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Yeah, I'm sure that would sell well.  Everyone running around online, spending a good minute between shots to load the ball and powder.  

To quote a kid on Call of Duty in 2007 "A world war 1 game would be stupid. It's just bolt action rifles."

Verdun's reviews:

Quote

RECENT:

Very Positive (242 reviews)

OVERALL:

Very Positive (17,955 reviews)

http://store.steampowered.com/app/242860/Verdun/#app_reviews_hash

14 hours ago, 8uhbbhu8 said:

Yay!!!!! I have played most of the series and hated almost all of it  Only one's I actually really liked were the 2 original WW2 games and up to COD 4. MOD WAR 1 was pretty ok and I thought it was better then it could have been but still could have been far better (Considering the games after it I consider the start of the downfall of COD it was damn good for its time)

Call of Duty 2 was blazes of fun. Even split screen with the neighboring kids was a lot of fun. 

13 hours ago, S.Stephenson said:

Should make a Napolonic Wars game and even have a side mission where the USA stabs you in the back in 1812.

 

The worst conflict after the World Wars in the west at least has to be the Crimean War, that could make a good game I'd imagine.

kek. 

Also Modern Slavic wars are... I think they'd be scary, but a lot of fun. 

13 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

snip

I didn't play BO3 campaign. I heard it was a bit random, and meh as well. As for MW2 multiplayer, I recall a lot of "connection interrupted" ending games, however for gameplay, I sucked so I can't really talk about how good it was. 

The notes about being a direct Copypasta from PC is interesting, and I thought they removed those console commands and whatnot for Console ports. I kinda want to try unlocking noclip and whatnot on consoles now haha. 

It's quite sad that mods are really dying out in major AAA games, (or attempted to being monotized *cough* bethsucksda *cough cough*) likely because of the DLC, Microtransaction marketing influence seen from Mobile gaming. 

Now that I've been playing more on PC with games like Rainbow Six Siege, I really notice shoddy internet. The school I'm at now has the WORST wifi ever. It was so bad it CRASHED my friend's CS:GO. WHEN HAVE YOU HEARD OF A VALVE GAME CRASHING!?!?!?!

My last school had Ethernet and oh boy... I was in love!! It's really difficult to go back to wifi now so I've been playing world of warcraft because it's easier to play with shite internet connection. 

I haven't seen the channel name of that CS:GO lag compensation test; I have seen 3Kliksphilip do a video on lag compensation with the online livestreaming of games. (Overwatch is the name of the watch thing, not talking about Blizzard's overwatch) and he shows the lag compensation showing that though on his PC he's getting headshots, but in the server it says he was missing the guy completely. This may have been patched out, however I don't know for sure. I don't read patch notes, and I play CS:GO for fun & don't care if I lose/get rekt. (even though I can PWN some Newbz.)

 

Sorry, I have to snip your posts. It all has well thought out information, but they're too long to leave quoted in full haha. 

5 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

I like futuristic warfare like AW and IW though I get many wanted back to old settings too. Though everyone was getting sick of those back in the day so modern setting got more popular. 

Now there will be WWII so good for a change once again I guess. 

I personally love Halo (I mean... OLD HALO) and think the futuristic aspects are cool. I've even considered getting into that Battlefield 2142 free to play fan creation (with EA's blessing) because space ships and robots are really cool. 

As for WW2, I just want to play D-Day haha. 

5 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

"Call of Duty: 9/11"

haha. It could be a start for a game, then do basically COD 4 where they hunted terrorists in whatever middle east country. 

I thought it was cool to play the war that the US was still in conflict with. I thought "When I grow up and join the army, it'll be just like this. M16, and fighting terrorists in their buildings." Now I'm just a programmer, and college student haha.  I respect our soldiers though! 

4 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

SAAS = Software As A Service. GAAS is thus Games As A Service. While it works for Destiny(Which it really doesn't, see Destiny 2. If it really were the Games As A Service model the previous content would have been ported to the new engine and it would have continued flawlessly.) it will work shittier for CoD if it works at all since WWII is inherently significantly more constrained in variety than something like Destiny.

Ahh yeah, I didn't see that acronym enough to remember it. Most people use the subscription dub for that. Like Photoshop, and premier are subscription models. (As you know, plural slang for subscription business model.) GAAS are common in casual games like Bejewled clones and candy crush. Pay to advance further in levels and whatnot. With female gamers (like moms) they are okay with these business model types because they've been lured into their gameplay and have become addicted. Now that it's bleeding into the mainstream is in my observation a reason why premium indie games are becoming so prominent. 

I didn't play destiny, however from what I hear it's very popular. Also... This exists: https://youtu.be/XXqcppKlCxA?t=2m

4 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

That's horrible. 

The second tower would be DLC. 

oh my hahahaha.

10 minutes ago, FloRolf said:

I really wonder how far into the development of 'CoD to infinity and beyond warfare' they were when battlefield 1 launched and they had to make a new game, lol. 

haha. The CEO defended Infinite Warfare saying they were 3 years in development. It was kinda sad, and if I was a game dev proud to work on Call of Duty, the reception of Infinite Warfare would have devastated me. I probably would have locked myself in my room for a month to have 3 years of work be wrote off as nothing as soon as the announcement came out. However, that's only fair free market. The company doesn't DESERVE to have games purchased just because they worked hard on them. 

Is Beyond Warfare the next CoD after WW2? I have been out of the loop for a while now. Black ops 2 came out, and then I don't even know. Black ops 1 came out, then MW3, then BO2, then.. Ghosts? Advanced Warfare? Black Ops 3? Infinite Warfare? 

[Doobeedoo]

40 minutes ago, fpo said:

I personally love Halo (I mean... OLD HALO) and think the futuristic aspects are cool. I've even considered getting into that Battlefield 2142 free to play fan creation (with EA's blessing) because space ships and robots are really cool. 

As for WW2, I just want to play D-Day haha. 

As far as sci-fi settings I really like Crysis and Nanosuit aspect how it works, make multiplayer so fun. 

For new CoD WW2 now beta for PC is yet to be seen.

[BuckGup]

MW2, COD Blops, MW3, and WaW were the best

[ZackBarletto]

20 hours ago, EnergyEclipse said:

I've never understood what the introduction of exo suits/space battles was so posed to bring to the series.

 

You have a groundbreaking blockbuster series, with no explanation required for the reasons behind the successes of each game, but then you go and add 'Exo-suits'? Why?

 

I am all up for them reinnovating gameplay mechanics, but seriously what were they meant to add, considering the success was based on boots on groud action? 

 

Advanced Warfare and Infinite Warfare to me could have actually been a reasonably good titles by themselves, but I don't believe either should ever have received a Call of Duty badge when we compare it to the rest of the series of that makes sense. 

 

 

 

 

lol. I think they just wanted double jump.... and mid air fire fights. that's it... at least for me, I never remember to even use the abilities!