• Welcome to the Angry Joe Show Army!

    Join our community of gamers passionate about our community and our hobby! Whether it's playing, discussing, or watching games, regardless of platform, genre, or location, we have a place for you, always!

  • PS4 Forum

    The AJSA Playstation 4 Division: Game Nights and More!

    The AJSA is on Playstation 4! Join us for weekly Game Nights with a selection of the best games the PS4 has to offer!

  • XBO Forum

    The AJSA Xbox One Division: We Got You Covered!

    The AJSA Xbox One Division is ready to connect with you on XBox Live with a ton of events for the best Xbox games!

  • News Archive

    The Best News from the Best Sites, Every Week.

    The AJSA News Collection Team is hard at work condensing a week's worth of news into one giant-sze digest for you to chew on and discuss! Links to source articles are always provided!

  • More Info

    The AJSA Expeditionary Force: Deploying to Play the Best PC Games!

    The elite vanguard of the AJSA, the Expeditionary Force (EF) chooses a new PC game every week! Join us for weekly events and help decide if the game has a future in the AJSA.

  • The Team

    Streaming Now: The AJSA Stream Team

    Joe can't stream every game, but our talented AJSA Stream Team covers a wide variety of games and personalities! Check them out, and show them some AJSA Love!

  • The Tube

    The AJSA Community YouTube Channel

    Featuring news, gameplay clips, and more from the community! The Community is a chance to showcase the best moments in AJSA Gaming!

Kaz32

COD Infinite Warfare. How is it?

27 posts in this topic

Well, it's that time again, and another COD game has arrived. I am not going to buy this game because I'm buying other games later. And because of the ridiculous 130GB download requirement ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS WITH THIS SHIT?? My internet cap will be destroyed with this crap! 

 

But I'm curious. For those that has played this game,

1) Did you play Infinite Warfare or Modern Warfare Remastered first?

2) Does it still play the same as the previous COD aside from the space combat section?

3) Why is Jon Snow in this game as the villain? He fits more as the main character than the actual main character, who is much more fitting as the villain.

4) Why is Conor McGregor in this game?

 

 

I saw the whole game on youtube. Interesting that there's side missions you can pick, like a sneaking mission and the plane sections. But like Black Ops 2's side missions, they're obviously just padding to make up for how short the entire game is. Unlike Black Ops 3 which has much better, if somewhat confusing as hell  story, this is a pretty safe game with a decent, if cliched story, with Conor McGregor, for some reason. He's nothing important in the story at all. You don't even fight him, he's just in the opening of the game, and then as a dead body cameo.

 

If you have a UFC champion in your game, HAVE HIM FIGHT YOU! WTF IS THIS???

 

Have to say though, compared to previous COD stories, this game's story is pretty weak. There is no twist, there is no betrayal, no mindfuck sequence like Black Ops 3, or even epic revelations like Black Ops 1. It is as straightforward as a story can get. There are cool set pieces involving fighting in space and fighting using a space fighterjet, but overall, it's the same game as before. Black Ops 3 is an improvement because it adds variables that lets you play how you want to play the game either by hacking robots, being stealthy or just being a bullet sponge juggernaut. Here? The same thing as Modern Warfare 1 aside from a grappling hook and double jump like Advanced Warfare, new futuristic weapons and the space setting. It's pretty funny how Modern Warfare Remastered, the game that Infinite Warfare is bundled with, is still a far superior game than Infinite Warfare, which is most likely the motivation of the majority of people that bought this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't say much about it but so far Joe likes it.

 

 

I'm alright with a game not being complex or offering twists on a story, problem of that being is that they can make a story convoluted, that's why I fucking hated the AHS seasons, they pump too many twists and shit.

From what I'm also hearing, this IS the best campaign Activision and the 3 studios released SINCE MW1. Not much of a surprise since IW brought in some Naughty Dog alumni. Side missions, space battles, a impressive story and characters, so far I've heard good things.

If the story just stays simple, but told well, it will be just as good. Keeping it simple is always a valid alternative. Fury Road is a prime example of a simple story told wonderfully.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard good things about the campaign.......  but the multiplayer is a completely different story.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I saw from Joe on his livestream, he wasn't too happy with the MP and found lots of things annoying. I've heard complaints that the game is actually P2W, but I only saw that from a few posts around and AJSA Discord chat, so I can't confirm it.

 

As for SP, apparently it's not bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, multiplayer is not impressive from what I hear, but it's not really P2W, since you can obtain those items by simply playing the game. Unless it's like Battlefront (which WAS Pay2Win one of the most powerful weapons is obtainable by simply buying the deluxe edition, breaking game balancing from the early days of the game), this is not much of an issue. Nowadays Pay2Win could mean anything, but if it is obtainable by playing the game, and not anything that destroys game balancing, it's not a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, DemonsColt said:

Yeah, multiplayer is not impressive from what I hear, but it's not really P2W, since you can obtain those items by simply playing the game. Unless it's like Battlefront (which WAS Pay2Win one of the most powerful weapons is obtainable by simply buying the deluxe edition, breaking game balancing from the early days of the game), this is not much of an issue. Nowadays Pay2Win could mean anything, but if it is obtainable by playing the game, and not anything that destroys game balancing, it's not a problem.

 

COD Infinite Warfare absolutely is Pay To Win, I'll post a video from The Know that explains in more detail but essentially it sums up like this.  Like in Advanced Warfare (among others) each weapon has customisable parts which can be earned in game or purchased through microtransactions.  But in In Infinite Warfare there is 2 significant differences.

 

1: Before raising one stat would come at the cost of another, in this one they don't.

2: The grind is WAY more punishing, 100 hours per weapon making those paid upgrades so much more appealing.

 

It's almost like because they knew this one wasn't going to sell as well they designed it to milk as much as possible out of the fanbase that they have and that's wrong.

 

Here is The Know's take on the situation.

 

Joe posted a video to:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Crazycrab said:

 

COD Infinite Warfare absolutely is Pay To Win, I'll post a video from The Know that explains in more detail but essentially it sums up like this.  Like in Advanced Warfare (among others) each weapon has customisable parts which can be earned in game or purchased through microtransactions.  But in In Infinite Warfare there is 2 significant differences.

 

1: Before raising one stat would come at the cost of another, in this one they don't.

2: The grind is WAY more punishing, 100 hours per weapon making those paid upgrades so much more appealing.

 

It's almost like because they knew this one wasn't going to sell as well they designed it to milk as much as possible out of the fanbase that they have and that's wrong.

 

Here is The Know's take on the situation.

 

Except this game will sell about as fast as BF1, the CoD fanbase do come back to these games.

 

Like I said, not really Pay 2 Win since these customization options can be obtained by simply playing the game, not only that these simply alter the weapons statistics, they do not really damage the game's balancing, seeing as you can get these customization parts from Supply Drops (there are other options). The supply drops can be bought or obtained in-game and they are completely random, kind of like BF1's supply drops or any game with this feature. So far you can only purchase Supply Drops, and they are completely random so it's not a huge deal, you truly do not know what you are getting regardless if you spent money or not. Not like Early Battlefront when EA and DICE thought it was a good idea to give Deluxe players the most powerful weapon early on, or whatever the hell Overkill is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DemonsColt said:

Like I said, not really Pay 2 Win since these customization options can be obtained by simply playing the game

That's very debateable. Lots of things can make something P2W or not make it P2W.

 

One thing that makes a game P2W is when it gives you access to something quickly if you just buy it and your other choice is to grind it for a 100 hours and that makes it slightly pay 2 win. For example, imagine a scenario where I buy a weapon that's good and you don't. I have a weapon that's stronger because I bought it and you won't have it for another 50 or more hours and you have to put in a lot of effort and while you are putting effort through grinding, I'm already unleashing this weapon on your ass and your team.

 

P2W or not, it's unforgivable for a triple A game that costs 60 dollars. I expect this shit in free to play games, but not full games. I got used to even seeing it in triple A games, b ut not this bad. Battlefield isn't any purer with their Battlepacks in BF3 and BF4, but at least they don't include good weapons which are luckily pretty easy to unlock in the game. And now with BF1, they completely removed that (for now at least I think), but nonetheless, such things shouldn't be in triple A games. Hell, even in BF4 you could buy Battlepacks that had unlocks for weapons which was annoying. True, it's rather easy to unlock them, but it's easier to just pay  10 euros and get 5 Battlepacks and one of them is certain to have a good unlock. That's slightly p2w. This is why I never fully enjoyed BF4. In Battlefield 3, you could buy shortcut to kits, but I didn't mind that because it came at the end of the game's update cycle and it was to give new players a boost so they don't constantly get destroyed by millions of veteran players with full unlocks and I didn't mind it. It was to boost the new player base after the game was free to grab and sales and help them, but adding options to buy shit on game's launch is a BAD IDEA!

If I'm paying for a game that also includes MP, I expect all things like weapons and shit to be at my dissposal through unlocking and not buying it with real money. You can feel free to put weapons and unlocks in some packs once the game is old and out of it's update cycle, just like what BF3 did so it's less of a struggle for new players, but putting such shit right into launch...P2W or not, it's just a bad idea.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Apex Spartan said:

One thing that makes a game P2W is when it gives you access to something quickly if you just buy it and your other choice is to grind it for a 100 hours and that makes it slightly pay 2 win. For example, imagine a scenario where I buy a weapon that's good and you don't.

 

 

 

Except you don't buy weapons in this, you buy supply drops, which are very random. There is no guarantee you get a good weapon, or a customization part. Also these vary from different classes from Standard to Epic, I haven't heard of any other way of obtaining new weapons other than random Supply Drops, which are obtainable though playing the game or spending money and making a gamble. The microtransactions in this are no different than with the Battlepacks which were also completely random and a gamble if you decide to spend your money.

savagejoe444 and Apex Spartan like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose that's right, but that's same shit as Battlefield 4 and it's still annoying and it is slightly Pay2win. You are basically buying stuff that can have good stuff, while others have to grind for it.

DemonsColt likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apex Spartan said:

I suppose that's right, but that's same shit as Battlefield 4 and it's still annoying and it is slightly Pay2win. You are basically buying stuff that can have good stuff, while others have to grind for it.

 

Well we can agree on that, just hope those who decide to spend their money are gambling on that they will get a cool new weapon or mod, but there is a bigger chance they won't.

 

I'm still wondering how the hell I get scrap in BF1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, DemonsColt said:

Can't say much about it but so far Joe likes it.

 

 

I'm alright with a game not being complex or offering twists on a story, problem of that being is that they can make a story convoluted, that's why I fucking hated the AHS seasons, they pump too many twists and shit.

From what I'm also hearing, this IS the best campaign Activision and the 3 studios released SINCE MW1. Not much of a surprise since IW brought in some Naughty Dog alumni. Side missions, space battles, a impressive story and characters, so far I've heard good things.

If the story just stays simple, but told well, it will be just as good. Keeping it simple is always a valid alternative. Fury Road is a prime example of a simple story told wonderfully.

The best thing about the story is the crew interactions. Ethan the humanized robot is fucking hilarious and that other guy who is played by that dude in Killzone Shadow Fall is great

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/9365907101_b6382a35798lbdy_6650.jpg

The most disappointing part of it all, aside from Conor McGregor being fucking useless, is Jon Snow himself. He is a weak ass villain. All he has ever done in the entire game is making speeches. Seriously! He doesn't even kick ass to show how badass of a threat he is. He spends most of his time in a hologram either making speeches to the public, or talking to you saying "YOU WILL NOT WIN THIS BATTLE! WE WILL DEFEAT YOU!" and then you don't even kill him in the final mission. You kill him before that in a sneak attack, and then the final mission starts which is basically just cleaning up loose ends. That's pretty weak.

 

The story overall is just ok. Yes Furi Road is a simple story told wonderfully, but that awesome film has awesome world, awesome heroes and awesome villains that can kick ass. This game has awesome world, awesome heroes and villains that are completely wasted. This is more like the campaign from that Medal of Honor game back in 2010, but in space.

 

 

HAHAHAHAHA, nope. Not even close to being the best campaign in the series. Modern Warfare 1 is still the best. Black Ops 1 takes second place. Infinite Warfare is just bellow Modern Warfare 2. Titanfall 2 that I just played, completely destroyed this game's campaign by a long shot, and Titanfall 2 to me is the true sequel to COD because of the many improvements it has over the entire COD franchise. Plus the mechs. Buy Titanfall 2 instead.

 

And besides, Titanfall 2 is only 30GB to download. Infinite Warfare: 130GB. Or 70GB IW and 50GB MW WHAT IS THAT BULLSHIT???

 

41 minutes ago, Apex Spartan said:

That's very debateable. Lots of things can make something P2W or not make it P2W.

 

One thing that makes a game P2W is when it gives you access to something quickly if you just buy it and your other choice is to grind it for a 100 hours and that makes it slightly pay 2 win. For example, imagine a scenario where I buy a weapon that's good and you don't. I have a weapon that's stronger because I bought it and you won't have it for another 50 or more hours and you have to put in a lot of effort and while you are putting effort through grinding, I'm already unleashing this weapon on your ass and your team.

 

P2W or not, it's unforgivable for a triple A game that costs 60 dollars. I expect this shit in free to play games, but not full games. I got used to even seeing it in triple A games, b ut not this bad. Battlefield isn't any purer with their Battlepacks in BF3 and BF4, but at least they don't include good weapons which are luckily pretty easy to unlock in the game. And now with BF1, they completely removed that (for now at least I think), but nonetheless, such things shouldn't be in triple A games. Hell, even in BF4 you could buy Battlepacks that had unlocks for weapons which was annoying. True, it's rather easy to unlock them, but it's easier to just pay  10 euros and get 5 Battlepacks and one of them is certain to have a good unlock. That's slightly p2w. This is why I never fully enjoyed BF4. In Battlefield 3, you could buy shortcut to kits, but I didn't mind that because it came at the end of the game's update cycle and it was to give new players a boost so they don't constantly get destroyed by millions of veteran players with full unlocks and I didn't mind it. It was to boost the new player base after the game was free to grab and sales and help them, but adding options to buy shit on game's launch is a BAD IDEA!

If I'm paying for a game that also includes MP, I expect all things like weapons and shit to be at my dissposal through unlocking and not buying it with real money. You can feel free to put weapons and unlocks in some packs once the game is old and out of it's update cycle, just like what BF3 did so it's less of a struggle for new players, but putting such shit right into launch...P2W or not, it's just a bad idea.

 

 

Man I hate P2W. The people who got the best weapons early on in the game will just dominate everyone else! And this is worse for COD, a multiplayer that already have broken and unfair as hell multiplayer where every second you respawn, you're fucking dead instantly. This game's multiplayer is more broken than broken Matt Hardy!

 

 

Well, so it's clear now. Don't buy Infinite Warfare, buy Titanfall 2 and Battlefield 1 instead!

Crazycrab likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DemonsColt said:

 

Except this game will sell about as fast as BF1, the CoD fanbase do come back to these games.

 

Like I said, not really Pay 2 Win since these customization options can be obtained by simply playing the game, not only that these simply alter the weapons statistics, they do not really damage the game's balancing, seeing as you can get these customization parts from Supply Drops (there are other options). The supply drops can be bought or obtained in-game and they are completely random, kind of like BF1's supply drops or any game with this feature. So far you can only purchase Supply Drops, and they are completely random so it's not a huge deal, you truly do not know what you are getting regardless if you spent money or not. Not like Early Battlefront when EA and DICE thought it was a good idea to give Deluxe players the most powerful weapon early on, or whatever the hell Overkill is doing.

 

Hey I totally agree with you about Battlefront but the systems with lootcrates, supply drops and RNG crap aren't any better.  I absolutely hate the battlepack bullshit from Battlefield because they are just as much pay to win, I also hate the Las Vegas slot machine crap because it encourages player to keep re-purchasing those packs until they get the drop that they want.  I even hate it for cosmetic only shit like in Overwatch because again, you have keep re-playing or re-purchasing to maybe get what you want.

 

The only system I would accept this an actual storefront so you can simply purchase what you want and is for cosmetic stuff only, or at least doesn't break the balance enough to be a problem.  Fuck pay to win and fuck random bullshit!

DemonsColt likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Kaz32 said:

 

The best thing about the story is the crew interactions. Ethan the humanized robot is fucking hilarious and that other guy who is played by that dude in Killzone Shadow Fall is great

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/9365907101_b6382a35798lbdy_6650.jpg

The most disappointing part of it all, aside from Conor McGregor being fucking useless, is Jon Snow himself. He is a weak ass villain. All he has ever done in the entire game is making speeches. Seriously! He doesn't even kick ass to show how badass of a threat he is. He spends most of his time in a hologram either making speeches to the public, or talking to you saying "YOU WILL NOT WIN THIS BATTLE! WE WILL DEFEAT YOU!" and then you don't even kill him in the final mission. You kill him before that in a sneak attack, and then the final mission starts which is basically just cleaning up loose ends. That's pretty weak.

 

The story overall is just ok. Yes Furi Road is a simple story told wonderfully, but that awesome film has awesome world, awesome heroes and awesome villains that can kick ass. This game has awesome world, awesome heroes and villains that are completely wasted. This is more like the campaign from that Medal of Honor game back in 2010, but in space.

 

Well that's odd since Kevin Spacey in AW does nothing but make speeches, and yet he is the best thing about AW. Father Comstock is a great villain in the Bioshock Infinite game, and so was Andrew Ryan and Hugo Strange in Arkham City. Heck, the moment you finally contront Strange at the end of Arkham City, he just stands there with his monotonous voice and awaits his comeuppance. He does not care what Batman will do to him, he is proud of what he has done. You do not need to get your hands dirty to be a threat, since it is clear that Kit Harrington's character has the power and strength to be that threat. He is manipulative, cunning and lethal. That is what makes a man more terrifying than someone who is just intimidating on the outside.

 

Also how the hell are the characters and world completely wasted? From what I'm seeing they are used very well, they have their purpose in the story, they are well written, people actually care for these characters, they are immersed in the journey that IW has created. From my standpoint, that is a success on their end. Those Naughty Dog alumni are a plus. And like I said, look on the IW reddit, there are people who only bought this game for the Remastered MW1 who were surprised by how well the campaign is.

1 hour ago, Kaz32 said:

HAHA, nope. Not even close to being the best campaign in the series. Modern Warfare 1 is still the best. Black Ops 1 takes second place. Infinite Warfare is just bellow Modern Warfare 2. Titanfall 2 that I just played, completely destroyed this game's campaign by a long shot, and Titanfall 2 to me is the true sequel to COD because of the many improvements it has over the entire COD franchise. Plus the mechs. Buy Titanfall 2 instead.

 

Well, a bunch of people that said it is about as good as MW1 played it. You didn't. And so far CoD actually has many improvements such as revamped movements introduced in AW, space battles, side missions, and attempted for an open like area kind of like Crysis 2, while MW1 is a linear shooter that tells you when you get to proceed and what you should do or not do. If you are asking for opinions on CoD and going to shoot it down instantly, why bother creating this thread?

 

1 hour ago, Kaz32 said:

Man I hate P2W. The people who got the best weapons early on in the game will just dominate everyone else! And this is worse for COD, a multiplayer that already have broken and unfair as hell multiplayer where every second you respawn, you're fucking dead instantly. This game's multiplayer is more broken than broken Matt Hardy

 

Like I said, these items are obtainable by playing the game, and you are most likely not getting the best weapons early, because there currently is no way to directly buy weapons. You have to buy supply drops which are random boxes of loot which happen to also be obtainable by playing the game. These boxes are about 2 USD and can be anything, from weapons to customization parts, and can be from a standard loot to a epic loot. If you choose to buy a supply drop, you are making a gamble that you MAY get a good weapon or a part. There is ZERO guarantee that you will get a good weapon or mod, if anything you probably would get something worse than what you have or about the same level. This microtransactions can be comparable to those Battlepacks Apex mentioned, or if EA decided to sell those Skill Cards in the Titanfall games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DemonsColt said:

 

Well that's odd since Kevin Spacey in AW does nothing but make speeches, and yet he is the best thing about AW. Father Comstock is a great villain in the Bioshock Infinite game, and so was Andrew Ryan and Hugo Strange in Arkham City. Heck, the moment you finally contront Strange at the end of Arkham City, he just stands there with his monotonous voice and awaits his comeuppance. He does not care what Batman will do to him, he is proud of what he has done. You do not need to get your hands dirty to be a threat, since it is clear that Kit Harrington's character has the power and strength to be that threat. He is manipulative, cunning and lethal. That is what makes a man more terrifying than someone who is just intimidating on the outside.

 

Also how the hell are the characters and world completely wasted? From what I'm seeing they are used very well, they have their purpose in the story, they are well written, people actually care for these characters, they are immersed in the journey that IW has created. From my standpoint, that is a success on their end. Those Naughty Dog alumni are a plus. And like I said, look on the IW reddit, there are people who only bought this game for the Remastered MW1 who were surprised by how well the campaign is.

 

Well, a bunch of people that said it is about as good as MW1 played it. You didn't. And so far CoD actually has many improvements such as revamped movements introduced in AW, space battles, side missions, and attempted for an open like area kind of like Crysis 2, while MW1 is a linear shooter that tells you when you get to proceed and what you should do or not do. If you are asking for opinions on CoD and going to shoot it down instantly, why bother creating this thread?

 

 

Like I said, these items are obtainable by playing the game, and you are most likely not getting the best weapons early, because there currently is no way to directly buy weapons. You have to buy supply drops which are random boxes of loot which happen to also be obtainable by playing the game. These boxes are about 2 USD and can be anything, from weapons to customization parts, and can be from a standard loot to a epic loot. If you choose to buy a supply drop, you are making a gamble that you MAY get a good weapon or a part. There is ZERO guarantee that you will get a good weapon or mod, if anything you probably would get something worse than what you have or about the same level. This microtransactions can be comparable to those Battlepacks Apex mentioned, or if EA decided to sell those Skill Cards in the Titanfall games.

 

Well no. Kevin Spacey has much more charisma and his presence is felt throughout the campaign. He's pretty much the best part of Advanced Warfare because his performance is awesomely over the top even though the heroes are pretty bland. And those other characters also have great charisma and great evil plans of their own which they accomplish really well.

 

Infinite Warfare is the complete opposite. The heroes are awesome and are the best part of the game, but Jon Snow is a really bland villain. He has no charisma at all and his plan is very straightforward. Even his speeches has no charisma like Kevin Spacey's, and all he does is talk big without showing why he's all that big of a deal. If you take him out of the game, the game itself won't change. You'll see when you see the whole game yourself.

 

I didn't say the characters and world are completely wasted, I said the villains are completely wasted. When you have Jon Snow and Connor McGregor as the bad guys, and then they don't have much to do in the story itself and die without even putting much of a fight, well, that's such an anticlimax. They deserve better than what they have in this game.

 

 

Besides, why do I need to play the game myself to see if it's good or not? I already saw the whole game on youtube myself. It's obvious that the game plays like Advanced Warfare but with new zero gravity mechanic and space dogfight mode, which is pretty much the best thing about the campaign because it's like Ace Combat Assault Horizon in space. I already played previous COD games and it's mostly the same, no exception with Infinite Warfare, so I'm not missing much. In fact I say Black Ops 3 is a more varied game than this because that one allows you to have multiple abilities to play the game either stealthily or guns blazing, while Infinite Warfare is like Black Ops 2 where the weapons are the only things you can change before missions.

 

 

Don't mistake this as me bashing the game. Nono, I'm just being honest. I never said the game is bad, I'm stating the facts. So let me recap what I said about Infinite Warfare:

 

Story is decent, setting is awesome, the heroes are awesome, but the villains are completely wasted. Gameplay is still the same as Modern Warfare 1 aside from the space flight segments and zero gravity. Yeah sure there's double jump and grappling hook and a bit of parkour taken from Titanfall, but it's still overall like Modern Warfare 1 where it's mostly a linear straightforward shooter with a straightforward shoot them all style, just like most of the other Call of Duty games till today. Black Ops 3 is the first game in the series' history where it's much more versatile in how you want to play the game. Sure there's sidequests, but that's just padding. And I am so sure that even with the sidequests, the most that you get out of this game is 7 hours because it'll take only 5 hours if you skip the side quests.

 

 

If this game sounds good to you, awesome! Glad you like it. I already know how the game is like because I saw the game already on youtube and have played previous COD games before and am familiar with them by this point. I would love for a separate spinoff game where it's all about the space combat and with more missions and epic bossfights with other boss space ships, and make it so the ship can also transform into a mech Macross style. That'll be sweet.

 

 

Ah, so that's how the supply drop in this game is. Just another random item generator bullshit where if you're lucky, you can get the best weapons earlier. Why??? In a game where the multiplayer balance and fairness is already completely broken, that's the last thing this game needs! 

 

 

Wait a minute!

objection-vector.png

The entire point of me making this thread is because I'm curious of what other people think after they play this campaign so that they can share their thoughts of this game, whether it's good or bad. You haven't played it and you're basing it on what other people think instead of looking at the game on youtube or playing the game to confirm it for yourself, so............. why so serious? I mean that's like accusing someone of a crime as a witness, and basing that accusation from someone else's words instead of actually witnessing the crime yourself!

 

Demon! What is the meaning of this??

 

For that matter, no one that has posted here actually played this game yet? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DemonsColt said:

Except you don't buy weapons in this, you buy supply drops, which are very random. There is no guarantee you get a good weapon, or a customization part. Also these vary from different classes from Standard to Epic, I haven't heard of any other way of obtaining new weapons other than random Supply Drops, which are obtainable though playing the game or spending money and making a gamble. The microtransactions in this are no different than with the Battlepacks which were also completely random and a gamble if you decide to spend your money.

If there is anything worse than ''You want this Weapon? 5 Dollars...'' It's ''You want this weapon? 5 Dollars each time till you get It from an RNG Box '' This is the worst version of Micro-transactions because when the people that spend their money, THEY HAVE NO GUARANTEE WHAT THEY GET, It's fucking gambling.

I don't believe this, It has to be some sort of divine miracle, but I hate CoD even more than before with this new release, and I had no idea that was even possible, fuck that game to hell.

Crazycrab likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kaz32 said:

 

Well no. Kevin Spacey has much more charisma and his presence is felt throughout the campaign. He's pretty much the best part of Advanced Warfare because his performance is awesomely over the top even though the heroes are pretty bland. And those other characters also have great charisma and great evil plans of their own which they accomplish really well.

 

Infinite Warfare is the complete opposite. The heroes are awesome and are the best part of the game, but Jon Snow is a really bland villain. He has no charisma at all and his plan is very straightforward. Even his speeches has no charisma like Kevin Spacey's, and all he does is talk big without showing why he's all that big of a deal. If you take him out of the game, the game itself won't change. You'll see when you see the whole game yourself.

 

I didn't say the characters and world are completely wasted, I said the villains are completely wasted. When you have Jon Snow and Connor McGregor as the bad guys, and then they don't have much to do in the story itself and die without even putting much of a fight, well, that's such an anticlimax. They deserve better than what they have in this game.

 

 

Besides, why do I need to play the game myself to see if it's good or not? I already saw the whole game on youtube myself. It's obvious that the game plays like Advanced Warfare but with new zero gravity mechanic and space dogfight mode, which is pretty much the best thing about the campaign because it's like Ace Combat Assault Horizon in space. I already played previous COD games and it's mostly the same, no exception with Infinite Warfare, so I'm not missing much. In fact I say Black Ops 3 is a more varied game than this because that one allows you to have multiple abilities to play the game either stealthily or guns blazing, while Infinite Warfare is like Black Ops 2 where the weapons are the only things you can change before missions.

 

Then once again, why did you make this thread if you already seen the story? Why is Kit Harrington and Conor McGregor wasted? What scenes makes you think they are wasted? How do you think they should be used more? You want wasted villains, play fucking Mankind Divided.

I did play the game, I played some minutes of the beta. But I cannot speak for the game directly because it was on PS4, so I needed to get used to the controller. That is why I'm considering the game. It is clear that they have made improvements in this game, even Joe admits this.

 

10 hours ago, Kaz32 said:

The entire point of me making this thread is because I'm curious of what other people think after they play this campaign so that they can share their thoughts of this game, whether it's good or bad. You haven't played it and you're basing it on what other people think instead of looking at the game on youtube or playing the game to confirm it for yourself, so............. why so serious? I mean that's like accusing someone of a crime as a witness, and basing that accusation from someone else's words instead of actually witnessing the crime yourself!

 

Why would I waste my time watching videos of the campaign? Why would I spoil it? I could just watch the prologue and be done with it and that is it. Also, the reason why I prefer people's opinions than YouTube videos is like I said.

 

They played it. You didn't.

Joe played it. You didn't.

 

When you watch a let's play, you are ridding 50% of the game, the gameplay. Videos do not work for me because I need to get a feel of the gameplay, the guys that said it was good got a feel and as such, I trust their views, especally since Joe was surprised at how well the campaign is so far for him. Take for example, MGR Revengeance, I thought that game a shitty story, but when I finally got my hands on it, I loved the hell out of it because of the gameplay, I got a feel for it. I did play the beta of IW, but it was on PS4, and I do not want my overall opinion of that affect the main game.

 

10 hours ago, Kaz32 said:

Ah, so that's how the supply drop in this game is. Just another random item generator bullshit where if you're lucky, you can get the best weapons earlier. Why??? In a game where the multiplayer balance and fairness is already completely broken, that's the last thing this game needs!

 

2 hours ago, Ranisel said:

If there is anything worse than ''You want this Weapon? 5 Dollars...'' It's ''You want this weapon? 5 Dollars each time till you get It from an RNG Box '' This is the worst version of Micro-transactions because when the people that spend their money, THEY HAVE NO GUARANTEE WHAT THEY GET, It's fucking gambling.

I don't believe this, It has to be some sort of divine miracle, but I hate CoD even more than before with this new release, and I had no idea that was even possible, fuck that game to hell.

 

Yes, the only way to purchase weapons is through the random Supply Drop, which is $2 USD, and there is no guarantee that you will get a good weapon. It's also completely optional, hence why I consider it to not be P2W. But it doesn't drastically affect multiplayer balancing, and plenty of games have done this kind of microtransaction.

BF4 had Battlepacks, which were obtained in-game or purchased with actual money. They were also random loot which also contains random weapons. Did people stop playing BF4 solely because of it? Not really. As of now, about 21,000 players are online in BF4 on PC, and overall, about 83,000 players are online right now in BF4 across the platforms. That is a pretty healthy number if you ask me. According to Apex, BF1 got rid of that, so that is acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DemonsColt said:

 According to Apex, BF1 got rid of that, so that is acceptable.

Don't make for the word. It's what Joe said in this review. Battlepacks are there, but they can't be bought. You can only unlock them by playing.

DemonsColt likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apex Spartan said:

Don't make for the word. It's what Joe said in this review. Battlepacks are there, but they can't be bought. You can only unlock them by playing.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I am playing BF1 through the trials, but I do not know how to obtain BP or scraps. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DemonsColt said:

Yes, the only way to purchase weapons is through the random Supply Drop, which is $2 USD, and there is no guarantee that you will get a good weapon. It's also completely optional, hence why I consider it to not be P2W. But it doesn't drastically affect multiplayer balancing, and plenty of games have done this kind of microtransaction.

BF4 had Battlepacks, which were obtained in-game or purchased with actual money. They were also random loot which also contains random weapons. Did people stop playing BF4 solely because of it? Not really. As of now, about 21,000 players are online in BF4, that is a pretty healthy number if you ask me. According to Apex, BF1 got rid of that, so that is acceptable.

What do you mean It's ''optional''? All micro-transactions are, regardless of how good they are and how much P2W they are, what the fuck man...?

It's not just cosmetic, you say that people buy with real money the same thing you get by playing the game, but that's like saying that particular pile of shit isn't so bad compared to others because It's fresh. You have a gambling/RNG Micro-transaction that provides advantages to people that buy It, which means It's P2W, regardless that you can get the same thing just by playing, because If you argue against that, essentially you're stating that the most popular examples of P2W  ( Eastern MMOs ) Aren't pay to win, because you can get those items by months of grinding instead of paying, and It pains me to see people defend this, It's just painful.

Fuck this game, fuck the whole franchise, fuck the fanbase, fuck RNG Boxes with Upgrades, fuck P2W and fuck RNG Micro-transactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DemonsColt said:

 

Then once again, why did you make this thread if you already seen the story? Why is Kit Harrington and Conor McGregor wasted? What scenes makes you think they are wasted? How do you think they should be used more? You want wasted villains, play fucking Mankind Divided.

I did play the game, I played some minutes of the beta. But I cannot speak for the game directly because it was on PS4, so I needed to get used to the controller. That is why I'm considering the game. It is clear that they have made improvements in this game, even Joe admits this.

 

Why would I waste my time watching videos of the campaign? Why would I spoil it? I could just watch the prologue and be done with it and that is it. Also, the reason why I prefer people's opinions than YouTube videos is like I said.

 

They played it. You didn't.

Joe played it. You didn't.

 

When you watch a let's play, you are ridding 50% of the game, the gameplay. Videos do not work for me because I need to get a feel of the gameplay, the guys that said it was good got a feel and as such, I trust their views, especally since Joe was surprised at how well the campaign is so far for him. Take for example, MGR Revengeance, I thought that game a shitty story, but when I finally got my hands on it, I loved the hell out of it because of the gameplay, I got a feel for it. I did play the beta of IW, but it was on PS4, and I do not want my overall opinion of that affect the main game.

 

I actually made the thread before I see the game on youtube. After I saw it, well, I edit it to add my thoughts to it. 

 

You can be all skeptical with me and question "Why is Kit Harrington and Conor McGregor wasted? What scenes makes you think they are wasted?" and think Mankind Divided's villain is wasted, but trust me. They are completely wasted. Mankind Divided's villain is much better than these two because at least he has presence and put up a fight. I don't want to spoil it, but since you asked:

 

All that Jon Snow does is talk cliched "YOU WILL NOT STOP US!!" speeches in the whole game. And how is he killed? He's doesn't even fight you. You just hack a robot, sucker punch him from behind, and he's dead. And that's not even the final mission. He's so bland that you can just take him out of the game and there will not be much of a difference.

 

Conor McGregor on the other hand, just show up in the intro, and he's very quickly killed in the next mission. 

 

And you know what's sad? The COD series is known for its villains. Makarov is a great villain. Raul Menendez is a great villain. Kevin Spacey is a great villain. Jon Snow is not even close to matching these guys. He should be the hero instead.

 

 

Wait, so you only played the multiplayer beta. You don't even play the singleplayer, and you're just trusting other people. I mean like you said:

They played it. I didn't.

Joe played it. I didn't.

 

What if when you play the game yourself, you ended up hating the game and disagree completely with what they have said? Would you trust them next time they say something?

 

 

I can bet 100% that the part about the game they love is the space combat, because that is the best part about the game. If you take that out and only have the usual shooting sections, it'll just be like Advanced Warfare and they will think differently about this game.

 

Also, even though I don't play it, I watch the game. Everytime I watch how a game is played on youtube, I visualize the controls in my head as if I'm playing the game. Just like when I watch Modern Warfare 3's whole campaign before playing it myself, after getting the game for my birthday. And sure enough, when I played the game myself, it's exactly the same as when I saw the game on youtube and visualize myself playing the game. 

 

 

Demon, I can tell you really want to like Infinite Warfare so you're defending the hell out of it. If you like it that much, then buy it! I won't tell you not to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kaz32 said:

You can be all skeptical with me and question "Why is Kit Harrington and Conor McGregor wasted? What scenes makes you think they are wasted?" and think Mankind Divided's villain is wasted, but trust me. They are completely wasted. Mankind Divided's villain is much better than these two because at least he has presence and put up a fight. I don't want to spoil it, but since you asked:

 

Mankind Divided's villain wasn't even in the game for 2 minutes. We were led to believe that there were powers that were bigger than the so called villain we had, and they weren't addressed AT ALL. At least IW had the decency to address these villains, show them as a threat and then tie loose ends with them. That is why I think Mankind Divided is example of a wasted villain because the true villains weren't even present, and once we found out who was the antagonist of MD, it was too fucking late. The damn game ended before it even began.

2 hours ago, Kaz32 said:

All that Jon Snow does is talk cliched "YOU WILL NOT STOP US!!" speeches in the whole game. And how is he killed? He's doesn't even fight you. You just hack a robot, sucker punch him from behind, and he's dead. And that's not even the final mission. He's so bland that you can just take him out of the game and there will not be much of a difference.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Kaz32 said:

Wait, so you only played the multiplayer beta. You don't even play the singleplayer, and you're just trusting other people. I mean like you said:

They played it. I didn't.

Joe played it. I didn't.

 

Well, I did play the multiplayer beta, and obviously the gunplay is roughly about the same in the campaign. And ofc I trust people that have played the game, because it's simple....

 

They played it. You didn't.

I can watch videos of it, and base my opinion on that, but that wouldn't be fair and balanced, because I didn't play it.

 

2 hours ago, Kaz32 said:

What if when you play the game yourself, you ended up hating the game and disagree completely with what they have said? Would you trust them next time they say something?

 

Well then it's a hell of a lot better than wasting my time watching videos. At least then I know whether or not I dislike a game. A good example is WWE 2K16, a game that looks good on video, but is a mess when you finally get a hand on it. Videos lie, they can show a game that is crap but in reality it is a lot better or vice versa, at the end you do not know how good it is until you get your hands on it.

 

2 hours ago, Kaz32 said:

Also, even though I don't play it, I watch the game. Everytime I watch how a game is played on youtube, I visualize the controls in my head as if I'm playing the game. Just like when I watch Modern Warfare 3's whole campaign before playing it myself, after getting the game for my birthday. And sure enough, when I played the game myself, it's exactly the same as when I saw the game on youtube and visualize myself playing the game. 

 

So you can visualize controls in your head? Can you visualize the feel of a gameplay? Can you visualize the pacing? It's not possible. This is why I wanted a lot of games to allow demos, why you think I join in all these betas and demos? To get a hands on feel of the game. You cannot visualize the feel of gameplay by not playing it. What that does is visualizing your thoughts on the game's mechanics and controls and that leads to a biased response. A demo or a hands on experience from the game removes most of that bias, and all that is left is how well you enjoy the game after an hour or two of a game session. Take for example Persona 4, a game which I thought looked boring on videos. Once I got a hands on with the game, it is a lot better than I expected. In fact, it is one of my favorite games of all time. Heck, a lot of people looked at Mafia 3 and quickly made assumptions about it. That game may be flawed as fuck, but once I got the game, I knew that the gunplay in that game is impressive. You cannot visualize that meaty gunplay in a YouTube video.

 

2 hours ago, Kaz32 said:

Demon, I can tell you really want to like Infinite Warfare so you're defending the hell out of it. If you like it that much, then buy it! I won't tell you not to buy it.

 

So because that the game so far has been getting good reviews on campaign, and actually changes it up to a point where the whole "they don't change" criticism is now void, you assume I'm interested in the game? Here we are back to assumptions, you quickly assumed that I am trying to like a game you think is terrible, even though there was never a time when I said, "I'm getting the game" or bashing any other game. I'm not at all interested in IW, but from what I hear from individuals that played the game, they definitely struck gold with the campaign. That should be a good thing. I'm tired of all the blind hatred and the blind assumptions, we should be skeptical, but we should hope for the best. It's clear that Activision is taking this franchise to new journeys with the help of Sledgehammer, Treyarch and IW, and that they should be allowed to do so. They still have an audience, and you can curse those people out as much as you people want. They'll just buy the games, and most likely continue to have fun with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DemonsColt said:

 

Mankind Divided's villain wasn't even in the game for 2 minutes. We were led to believe that there were powers that were bigger than the so called villain we had, and they weren't addressed AT ALL. At least IW had the decency to address these villains, show them as a threat and then tie loose ends with them. That is why I think Mankind Divided is example of a wasted villain because the true villains weren't even present, and once we found out who was the antagonist of MD, it was too fucking late. The damn game ended before it even began.

 

 

 

Well, I did play the multiplayer beta, and obviously the gunplay is roughly about the same in the campaign. And ofc I trust people that have played the game, because it's simple....

 

They played it. You didn't.

I can watch videos of it, and base my opinion on that, but that wouldn't be fair and balanced, because I didn't play it.

 

 

Well then it's a hell of a lot better than wasting my time watching videos. At least then I know whether or not I dislike a game. A good example is WWE 2K16, a game that looks good on video, but is a mess when you finally get a hand on it. Videos lie, they can show a game that is crap but in reality it is a lot better or vice versa, at the end you do not know how good it is until you get your hands on it.

 

 

The villain for Mankind Divided is Victor Marchenko. The Illuminati is also behind everything in Human Revolution but they are behind the scenes most of the time as well.

 

As I was saying, play the game yourself and see how little Jon Snow affects anything in the game. Hugo Strange created Arkham City and he manipulates the supervillains in the game with his cunning mind, and in the end his evil plan with Protocol 10 comes as a large threat to everyone in Arkham City, criminals and civilians alike.

 

Jon Snow is just a figurehead that leads his men to attack your organization. He doesn't have an evil or great plan that actually makes him threatening, he's just there to fight you because he's a bad guy.

 

Yeah yeah, they played it, I didn't. Even if I play the game myself, my opinion about the game is still the same either way.

 

No, video gameplay don't lie. They are the very thing that determines if a game is worth buying or not. 2K16 looks exactly like how it is on gameplay. I know cause I played 2K15 before, and the game doesn't change anything much besides the submission and the pinning minigame.

 

That's why before I buy a game, I don't just read reviews, I also look at the few minutes of the game's gameplay.

2 hours ago, DemonsColt said:

So you can visualize controls in your head? Can you visualize the feel of a gameplay? Can you visualize the pacing? It's not possible. This is why I wanted a lot of games to allow demos, why you think I join in all these betas and demos? To get a hands on feel of the game. You cannot visualize the feel of gameplay by not playing it. What that does is visualizing your thoughts on the game's mechanics and controls and that leads to a biased response. A demo or a hands on experience from the game removes most of that bias, and all that is left is how well you enjoy the game after an hour or two of a game session. Take for example Persona 4, a game which I thought looked boring on videos. Once I got a hands on with the game, it is a lot better than I expected. In fact, it is one of my favorite games of all time. Heck, a lot of people looked at Mafia 3 and quickly made assumptions about it. That game may be flawed as fuck, but once I got the game, I knew that the gunplay in that game is impressive. You cannot visualize that meaty gunplay in a YouTube video.

 

 

So because that the game so far has been getting good reviews on campaign, and actually changes it up to a point where the whole "they don't change" criticism is now void, you assume I'm interested in the game? Here we are back to assumptions, you quickly assumed that I am trying to like a game you think is terrible, even though there was never a time when I said, "I'm getting the game" or bashing any other game. I'm not at all interested in IW, but from what I hear from individuals that played the game, they definitely struck gold with the campaign. That should be a good thing. I'm tired of all the blind hatred and the blind assumptions, we should be skeptical, but we should hope for the best. It's clear that Activision is taking this franchise to new journeys with the help of Sledgehammer, Treyarch and IW, and that they should be allowed to do so. They still have an audience, and you can curse those people out as much as you people want. They'll just buy the games, and most likely continue to have fun with them.

Yeah I can. I played Call of Duty games before, so I'll just imagine playing this game with the same control as previous games. Even for Mafia 3, from the way enemies die and the way the gun is fired from gameplay footages, I know that the gunplay is going to be good. Too bad about the repetitive mission structure.

 

Alright, now you're being ridiculous man. I NEVER said it's a terrible game. I am saying that infinite Warfare is the same as previous COD games aside from the side missions and the space plane section. When did I ever say "this game sucks and no one should buy it" ?

 

 

 

Alright, here's the bottom line. Infinite Warfare's singleplayer has:

decent story, great main heroes and an unfortunately uninteresting villain. Gameplay is mostly the same as previous COD games, except the space plane sections and sidequests. That is not bad, that's a good thing. Unless you're tired of the same gameplay of the previous COD games.

 

Multiplayer though, is completely broken like before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Kaz32 said:

No, video gameplay don't lie. They are the very thing that determines if a game is worth buying or not. 2K16 looks exactly like how it is on gameplay. I know cause I played 2K15 before, and the game doesn't change anything much besides the submission and the pinning minigame.

Yes they can. Did you ignore my examples of Persona 4 and Revengance? Did you ignore the assumptions that other people made during Mafia 3? It is possible that video gameplay can in fact lie. You can miss out the on overall feel of the game, and they can affect your purchase. I have had this happen to me many times, to the point that I am convinced that it is better to play a game, or trust those that have played it, rather than watch gameplay videos and base my opinion on that and risk missing out on a good game. That's why I simply do not believe in that statement, you are of course free to believe in you want to believe.

38 minutes ago, Kaz32 said:

The villain for Mankind Divided is Victor Marchenko. The Illuminati is also behind everything in Human Revolution but they are behind the scenes most of the time as well.

The villain is a man who shows up at one scene, leaves, you kill him the next time and the game ends in the most anticlimactic way since The Order 1886? Why are you not pissed at the fact that the game truly ended before it even began? It is clear that Victor Marchenko is not the big bad of the game, he was not written as that, there was no clues at all, everything pointed out to this big conspiracy and Bob Page and his circle of elites were hinted as the big bads. Nope, we have to wait for another fucking game for that bullshit. I can say a lot of shit about Mafia 3, but at least the fucking game had closure and ended properly. Sick and tired of this cliffhanger bullshit.

 

38 minutes ago, Kaz32 said:

Yeah I can. I played Call of Duty games before, so I'll just imagine playing this game with the same control as previous games.

This reinforces how using your thoughts can create a biased response to the game instead of getting a hands on experience. I played the beta, not much but enough to know that I probably won't be touching the game anytime soon since I can just wait for a Free Weekend on Steam.

For example, I tried this approach when I saw gameplay for Uncharted 4, I see if I can replicate the same control from UC3 onto this. When I finally bought the game, I realized that the game plays a lot better than I expected it to be.

Another example is Gears of War 4, saw gameplay for Gears of War 4, tried to replicate it from my experiences playing Gears Ultimate Edition, didn't much care for Ultimate Edition's gameplay and controls so that brought my expectations down. But I was still interested, so I bought Gears 4 and good fucking lord, the game is fun as hell. A huge leap from Ultimate Edition, and I do not mean the performance, I mean EVERYTHING. Everything in Gears 4 was significantly upgraded, and I did not see that in the gameplay videos. Once again, this is my preference, and you are welcome to have your own.

38 minutes ago, Kaz32 said:

Alright, now you're being ridiculous man. I NEVER said it's a terrible game. I am saying that infinite Warfare is the same as previous COD games aside from the side missions and the space plane section. When did I ever say "this game sucks and no one should buy it" ?

Well it sounded like you had some sort of bias coming into this. Sorry if I insulted you. And I never said that you said the game sucks. See? You getting me going to assumptions. It's a terrible thing. Like I said, your opinion, I firmly think Activision is trying something with the CoD games and it will take time for the community to later accept that. Personally, I believe Activision may have something here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, DemonsColt said:

Yes they can. Did you ignore my examples of Persona 4 and Revengance? Did you ignore the assumptions that other people made during Mafia 3? It is possible that video gameplay can in fact lie. You can miss out the on overall feel of the game, and they can affect your purchase. I have had this happen to me many times, to the point that I am convinced that it is better to play a game, or trust those that have played it, rather than watch gameplay videos and base my opinion on that and risk missing out on a good game. That's why I simply do not believe in that statement, you are of course free to believe in you want to believe.

The villain is a man who shows up at one scene, leaves, you kill him the next time and the game ends in the most anticlimactic way since The Order 1886? Why are you not pissed at the fact that the game truly ended before it even began? It is clear that Victor Marchenko is not the big bad of the game, he was not written as that, there was no clues at all, everything pointed out to this big conspiracy and Bob Page and his circle of elites were hinted as the big bads. Nope, we have to wait for another fucking game for that bullshit. I can say a lot of shit about Mafia 3, but at least the fucking game had closure and ended properly. Sick and tired of this cliffhanger bullshit.

 

Another example is Gears of War 4, saw gameplay for Gears of War 4, tried to replicate it from my experiences playing Gears Ultimate Edition, didn't much care for Ultimate Edition's gameplay and controls so that brought my expectations down. But I was still interested, so I bought Gears 4 and good fucking lord, the game is fun as hell. A huge leap from Ultimate Edition, and I do not mean the performance, I mean EVERYTHING. Everything in Gears 4 was significantly upgraded, and I did not see that in the gameplay videos. Once again, this is my preference, and you are welcome to have your own.

Well it sounded like you had some sort of bias coming into this. And I never said that you said the game sucks. See? You getting me going to assumptions. It's a terrible thing. Like I said, your opinion, I firmly think Activision is trying something with the CoD games and it will take time for the community to later accept that. Personally, I believe Activision may have something here.

No I didn't. It's hard to explain this, but I can just feel a game by looking at the gameplay. It's like my own personal "superpower" you see. You can't, so let's just leave it at that.

 

Well, the main conflict of the game happen because of Marchenko's organization. In the end of the game, the current conflict is resolved and they are stopped. So I'm not as pissed as a lot of people, and because during the game, there's a lot of cool side quests that I finished, so I at least complete the game satisfied by doing a lot. Order 1886 just ends midway even though it's very clear that there's a lot of loose threads that could have easily been fixed right there.

 

Yes Gears 4 is obviously an improvement. Personally though, I don't really like the series. I played 1 and 2 and am quite bored by the gameplay. It's pretty basic and glued to the ground to the cover. I prefer Uncharted's gameplay where it's more versatile.

 

Then what's all this?

So because that the game so far has been getting good reviews on campaign, and actually changes it up to a point where the whole "they don't change" criticism is now void, you assume I'm interested in the game? Here we are back to assumptions, you quickly assumed that I am trying to like a game you think is terrible, even though there was never a time when I said, "I'm getting the game" or bashing any other game. I'm not at all interested in IW, but from what I hear from individuals that played the game, they definitely struck gold with the campaign. That should be a good thing. I'm tired of all the blind hatred and the blind assumptions, we should be skeptical, but we should hope for the best.

 

Activision has done a good step up with Black Ops 3's gameplay. Infinite Warfare tone it down, but the space section is a good addition.

 

Titanfall 2 though, has a much more awesome and epic campaign, and that to me is what a COD sequel should be. Compare Infinite Warfare and Titanfall 2's campaign side by side, and Titanfall 2 kicks Infinite Warfare's ass with it's brilliant campaign level design. Well at least for me.

 

We shall wish Activision the best for the next COD campaign. Next year is Sledgehammer's turn. Wonder what they'll come up with next after Advanced Warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now