But they haven't run out of ideas, and each game is significantly improved over the last game and offer enough content to make it worth being an entirely new game. And for the record, yes, I would be purchase Metroid Prime 7 if it came out
those improvements tend to become more mundane each release and if they're doing their job right there shouldn't be enough room for improvement to span of half a dozen more games. more importantly, at a certain point continuing down the same path comes at the expense of truly new ideas. there's a reason nintendo never stays in the same place for too long with any of their franchises, and that's because the sense of doing something new is a part of their games as much as anything. what made mario galaxy so amazing was that it was unlike anything you'd played before. new super mario bros. in comparison shows what things would be like if they'd never left the original 2D form; it's great, but not nearly as interesting as galaxy, is it?
look at resident evil 4 and zero and you can see the same thing- two great games, but the one that's remembered much more favorably is the one that went off the track and did something different. and, for the hell of it, then look at resident evil 5- it continued down that path and was less favorably received for not doing enough that was new to keep it interesting.
if you stick with the same thing over and over again then you'll miss opportunities to try new paths that could make the series better. i hope you're far from bored with call of duty as it is now, because with the way activision is investing so heavily in the series you can expect it to keep going down that same path for a long time.
that's why (back on topic) i'd pass on black ops, which amounts to version 7.0 of a work in progress, and try goldeneye instead.
that's why (back on topic) i'd pass on black ops, which amounts to version 7.0 of a work in progress, and try goldeneye instead.
You do know Goldeneye isn't the first Bond game Eurocom has made, right? Really, they're both culminations of years of work and experience. Neither of them are really new experiences, and it doesn't matter since the OP hasn't played any FPSes yet, they're both new experiences to him. All that matters is the quality of the game. I haven't played Goldeneye, just watched some reviews, so I'll leave that determination up to those who have played them. With that said, saying "don't get the game because they'll make a new one eventually" doesn't really seem like a fair argument, especially if the game in question is good as is, and in this case, the chances of a quality successor seem remarkably slim.
As for the Call of Duty series, every new game adds new missions, new stories, new characters, new weapons, new modes, and it tweaks the gameplay to improve the few things that didn't work while enhancing and expanding on the things that did (again, excluding Call of Duty 3). What more do you want from a realistic First-Person Shooter series?
Sadly since the company that made the SWBF games is no longer around I dont see that happening.
That can only be a good thing. Now there's a chance that the series will finally land in the hands of a quality developer someday and maybe the end result won't be a buggy mess with a Multiplayer that's ruined by exploits.
But they haven't run out of ideas, and each game is significantly improved over the last game and offer enough content to make it worth being an entirely new game. And for the record, yes, I would be purchase Metroid Prime 7 if it came out
those improvements tend to become more mundane each release and if they're doing their job right there shouldn't be enough room for improvement to span of half a dozen more games. more importantly, at a certain point continuing down the same path comes at the expense of truly new ideas. there's a reason nintendo never stays in the same place for too long with any of their franchises, and that's because the sense of doing something new is a part of their games as much as anything. what made mario galaxy so amazing was that it was unlike anything you'd played before. new super mario bros. in comparison shows what things would be like if they'd never left the original 2D form; it's great, but not nearly as interesting as galaxy, is it?
look at resident evil 4 and zero and you can see the same thing- two great games, but the one that's remembered much more favorably is the one that went off the track and did something different. and, for the hell of it, then look at resident evil 5- it continued down that path and was less favorably received for not doing enough that was new to keep it interesting.
if you stick with the same thing over and over again then you'll miss opportunities to try new paths that could make the series better. i hope you're far from bored with call of duty as it is now, because with the way activision is investing so heavily in the series you can expect it to keep going down that same path for a long time.
that's why (back on topic) i'd pass on black ops, which amounts to version 7.0 of a work in progress, and try goldeneye instead.
Your failed logic here is that trying something different = better. I think the reason RE5 is not as highly regarded as RE4 is not because it is similar to RE4, but because it's simply not as good of a game as RE4. And I'm not sure why you are criticizing the CoD games for lack of originality when Goldeneye for Wii looks more or less like an average James Bond FPS. Nothing too original there. It's probably a good game (I haven't played it yet) but I don't think it's gonna revolutionize the FPS genre. Unless the CoD designers decide to turn the games into 2D platformers, I'm really not sure what else they could to really shake things up.
EDIT: To further clarify my analysis about RE4 and RE5, just look at RE1(PSX) and RE2. Both are third person survival horror games that involve zombies, but RE2 greatly expanded on the formula. Short of different environments, characters and enemies, the formula wasn't that much different than RE1, yet most people would agree RE2 is the better game. For nostalgia reasons, I kind of prefer RE1, but the general consensus is that RE2 is the better game. Also, since you mention the Mario franchise, let's look at SMB1 and SMB3. Both are 2D platformers. Yet SMB3 took the formula and expanded on it, creating arguably the best game on the NES. And it really wasn't that much of a dramatic leap gameplay wise from SMB1.
Unless the CoD designers decide to turn the games into 2D platformers, I'm really not sure what else they could to really shake things up.
Well that's exactly what they should do then because that would be AWESOME.
Please sign the petition to get Nintendo to integrate Social Features directly in the Switch OS/Hardware:
https://www.change.org/p/nintendo-integrated-network-features-on-nintendo-switch-voice-chat-lobby
Your failed logic here is that trying something different = better. And I'm not sure why you are criticizing the CoD games for lack of originality when Goldeneye for Wii looks more or less like an average James Bond FPS. Nothing too original there. I haven't played it yet
i wasn't saying that games have to radically change every time, just that there are lots of times when they should. i can look at majora's mask, galaxy 2 and the prime trilogy and say that those times there was enough left to explore to keep going the same direction. with call of duty i don't see that. i've played world at war, modern warfare, modern warfare 2, and now black ops, and for the most part they're the same game with different guns/uniforms. you say there's no way to innovate any more than they already have, well that's kind of the point- why make another game when you don't have a new idea, aside from the obvious reason that it's bringing in money?
your criticism about goldeneye doesn't really need a response, does it?
Your failed logic here is that trying something different = better. And I'm not sure why you are criticizing the CoD games for lack of originality when Goldeneye for Wii looks more or less like an average James Bond FPS. Nothing too original there. * I haven't played it yet *
i wasn't saying that games have to radically change every time, just that there are lots of times when they should. i can look at majora's mask, galaxy 2 and the prime trilogy and say that those times there was enough left to explore to keep going the same direction. with call of duty i don't see that. i've played world at war, modern warfare, modern warfare 2, and now black ops, and for the most part they're the same game with different guns/uniforms. you say there's no way to innovate any more than they already have, well that's kind of the point- why make another game when you don't have a new idea, aside from the obvious reason that it's bringing in money?
your criticism about goldeneye doesn't really need a response, does it?
Well, after playing Goldeneye I can say that it isn't all that original. Does that matter, though?
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Well, after playing Goldeneye I can say that it isn't all that original. Does that matter, though?
it's not as groundbreaking as the original but i think it still stands out. the way the story unfolds dead space extraction style is pretty neat and the heavy stealth elements almost make it feel like a first person metal gear sometimes. the multiplayer levels are also tighter and more retro styled than the more sprawling, huge ones in the modern shooters i've played. it may not sound like much, but that's enough for it to feel a lot fresher than any other fps i've played in a long time.
Well, after playing Goldeneye I can say that it isn't all that original. Does that matter, though?
it's not as innovative as the original but i think it still stands out. the way the story unfolds dead space extraction style is pretty neat and the heavy stealth elements almost make it feel like a first person metal gear sometimes. the multiplayer levels are also tighter and more chaotic than the more sprawling, huge ones in the modern shooters i've played.
Then you haven't played the other Bond FPSes. They have done a few things new, but it's tough to innovate a genre that's just about killing people, especially since CoD and GE are both supposed to be, you know, realistic. It's hard to improve on reality. No offense, but it doesn't seem like sound logic to expect the type of innovation you get from Zelda or Mario. Those are just different types of games.
Also FYI, Call of Duty 1 was in Europe. Call of Duty 2 was in WWII Europe, but better. Call of Duty 4 was in a fictional but still believable modern war. World at War was in WWII Pacific front, Modern Warfare 2 was a Micheal Bay movie, Black Ops is a 1960's Conspiracy theory. All with different characters and unique missions. Just from a singleplayer standpoint, it seems like they've yet to stagnate. It's not they've been meandering in the same war for the past decade like Medal of Honor and Brothers in Arms. Again, what else do you want?
Well, after playing Goldeneye I can say that it isn't all that original. Does that matter, though?
it's not as innovative as the original but i think it still stands out. the way the story unfolds dead space extraction style is pretty neat and the heavy stealth elements almost make it feel like a first person metal gear sometimes. the multiplayer levels are also tighter and more chaotic than the more sprawling, huge ones in the modern shooters i've played.
Then you haven't played the other Bond FPSes. They have done a few things new, but it's tough to innovate a genre that's just about killing people, especially since CoD and GE are both supposed to be, you know, realistic. It's hard to improve on reality. No offense, but it doesn't seem like sound logic to expect the type of innovation you get from Zelda or Mario. Those are just different types of games.
Also FYI, Call of Duty 1 was in Europe. Call of Duty 2 was in WWII Europe, but better. Call of Duty 4 was in a fictional but still believable modern war. World at War was in WWII Pacific front, Modern Warfare 2 was a Micheal Bay movie, Black Ops is a 1960's Conspiracy theory. All with different characters and unique missions. Just from a singleplayer standpoint, it seems like they've yet to stagnate. It's not they've been meandering in the same war for the past decade like Medal of Honor and Brothers in Arms. Again, what else do you want?
I'm gonna agree with Mickeymac on this one. I still think Goldeneye is pretty swell, though
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
I also think that CoD games are too similar, Im not saying thats a bad thing, but I preffer different games, thats why I (normaly) don't buy sequel, after sequel, if you get it.
your criticism about goldeneye doesn't really need a response, does it?
I really wasn't being critical of the game, I'm sure it's a lot of fun and I look forward to playing it. But I've read enough reviews of the game to form the opinion that it probably doesn't do much that other James Bond FPSs have done in the past. Am I wrong about that? I'm sure it's great fun though. And having fun is why we all play video games in the first place.
Forums
Topic: Goldeneye or Black Ops?
Posts 61 to 80 of 188
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.