Maybe this will steer them away from burying Call of Duty in similar fashion...or not...

http://kotaku.com/#!5756232/did-activision-just-kill-guitar-hero-and-true-crime

_________________

Done at this very moment? No, of course not. Done if they follow the same blueprint they did with Guitar Hero, where they push multiple mediocre releases out in a calendar year. Yes, done.

The editor-in-chief of Game Informer just had this little nugget on twitter:

Flash forward 3 years from now and we are talking about how ATVI isn't going to release a CoD game & how the genre was milked back in 2011

Activision will probably Tony Hawk CoD into the ground just like they did with GH and...Tony Hawk.

Like I said in the other thread, it's a shame Freestyle Games got hosed in this too, DJ Hero 2 was a great game.

Absolutely. Activision loves to take a solid franchise, shove it down consumers throats, and suck it dry until only a husk is left. See, as you mentioned, Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero and CoD in the near future. And I don't think Activision has any other similar franchises in the pipeline. in the pipleline. They are going all in on CoD and are putting a lot of developers into pumping out games in a multitude of genres and will probably over saturate the market with a bunch of bad/mediocre games (2 per year at minimum). Remember Mortal Kombat 1-3, Sub-Zero's side scroller and the others? Yeah, it will probably be like that. Lets be honest here, Activision puts out 1 game a year or so. The games are identical in gameplay, are 6 hours in length w/zero replayability in single player, and the multiplayer experience is pretty much identical from year to year. Overpriced and low-content DLC is delivered for $15.00 with some cut n' paste maps and a new gun or two, stuff that should be in the game anyways. People will probably keep paying it for a bit until something else arrives or they just plain get tired of paying 60 dollars to play what amounts to the same game with a new coat of paint (Still runs on the Quake 3 engine) and the same multiplayer. And they are def. going to try to start monetizing the game to some extent like Free to Play MMO's do. Sure you can start it up and get online but you will be squashed if you don't purchase some body armor or that new gun or "perk"....for $2.50 a piece.

Say what you will about Treyarch vs IW, but in the end the games a pretty much the same. I played the hell out of MW, loved it, but I started to tire of WaW, fatigued with MW2 and don't really play BlackOps anymore and have no desire to get the map pack. I'm sure I'm not alone.

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.

True dat. It's hard to say there is a real difference between Black Ops and MW2... Treyarch vs. IW? Who cares... basically the same game. If you are not innovating, it basically becomes a $60 map pack. Good way to kill a franchise.

That being said, Black Ops is a good game. I've actually enjoyed it more than MW2. I like the way you spend the cash and I think they balanced out the Perks and Killstreaks. The mad knifers in MW2 just made it not fun anymore.

Define "special"? CoD 1-2 where amazing games, MW was awesome, WaW was a good game, MW2 was MW1 with some new stuff sprinkled in and BlackOps is in the jungle. The mechanics are the same, the gameplay is the same...it's a new coat of paint, some new voice actors, etc.

I mean really, have both developers make a CoD game, don't tell 2 gamers who made them and the gamers wouldn't know the difference. It's the same fucking game.

I still think Treyarch IMPROVED upon MW2... not took a step back. I like the maps better and the Perks are definitely better balanced. It's not innovative, but I still think Treyarch's Black Ops didn't take a step back.

You don't own it (so I'm guessing having not played it much)... so I'm having a hard time understanding how you can have an informed opinion. You strike me as one of those Treyarch haters, which I can understand why you'd have that opinion after WaW. It's like the guys who hate New York City, but have never spent much time there.

so now it's the same, not worse like you suggested before?

And FWIW, I think it is kinda BS for you to take someone else's opinion and pawn it off as your own.

As someone who has never played any CoD, I can assure you it's always sucked.

Whatever, dude. You don't see me spouting off about Final Fantasy because I don't play it. I think you somehow feel the need to comment on everything... even crap you've never played. I frankly don't care... I just find it very funny that you feel the need to let us know how "other people you trust" feel about the title. And it's not just this game.

Why would Treyarch go and do something totally different with their installment of the game? The killstreaks worked and worked well so Treyarch refined them and kept them in the game. I don't know what your trying to prove by saying Treyarch "copied" the killstreak or whatever, the developers weren't in competition, Treyarch did the "in between games". The killstreak is a part of CoD, the design of the game itself, as long as it has the 'Call of Duty' name on it will always, always carry the same basic game design principals, it has to in the eyes of Activision and probably the players as well. Activision doesn't want the apple cart upset and turn off traditional CoD fans.

Plus, I really doubt Activision gave Treyarch free reign to get as creative as they could be nor do I think they could make a radical departure as they probably didn't have a very long lead time to develop the game. Even with all of the resources and templates and such in place it still takes a long time to finsh a game, test it etc.

I'm sorry, the whole "they stole stuff from MW" line is crap. They aren't competitors, just developers under the same publisher working on the same franchise of games at a similar cadence. Now, if DICE went out and did some killstreak stuff or whatnot, that would mean something.

Someone forgogt to tell the guys at Infinity Ward that they weren't competitors...

CoD as we know it begins with Modern Warfare 1. That was the super huge hit. CoD 1 was great, CoD 2 consolized it and laid the ground work but MW1 was CoD as the modern console generation knows it. CoD3 was the beginning of Treyarch "filling the gaps" and being the tag along. If Treyarch started it before IW, the roles would be reveresed.

And as for being competitors, CoD is CoD whether it's Black Ops or MW2 or whatever. Both developers know what the people want and will give it to them with minor tweaks. I'll admit that IW (R.I.P) was the flag holder for the series, they had the lead in development as Treyarchs first full CoD game was CoD 3, 2 cycles behind IW and they were the tag alongs. But both developers know the score and know what the consumers want. Look at MW1 to MW2 to BlackOps. All the same, sorry. I don't especially like the BlackOps maps at all as they lack variety but really, the gameplay and such is identical, while the "special moments" may be different, the gameplay, core mechanics and graphics are identical and that isn't by accident.

Uh, I never said 1st Person shooters started on the Xbox360 nor did I say that CoD and CoD2 weren't "huge hits" CoD was a premier launch title and has sold around 2 million units total. MW2 sold 5 million units in 24 hours, Black Ops sold 5 million + in 24 hours and MW1 has sold over 10 million total there is a large difference there. The modern super crazy pop culture phenomenon that is "Call of Duty" began with MW even though I believe the PC CoD was probably the best. I also don't know what you are trying to say by telling me that IW created the IP, everyone knows that. Treyarch, besides making a CoD1 expansion pack (might have been Medal of Honor) they have piggy backed IW with CoD, I never said they made a better game or a game that plays better or whatever. Or even that they have made good games outside of Spider Man and Triple Play. By piggy backing and filling the gaps they have to take IW's lead. The series has a common, if not identical, thread, mechanics and graphics etc. That is what Treyarch is there for, that is to keep the cadence of games going, to possibly refine some things and give the game setting a change of pace. And you're right, Treyarch are not Top shelf developers so they probably couldn't take the reigns and take CoD to the moon....Activision is simply going to use 6 developers to try and do that.

I know, I took that into account. I lament the steady decline of PC gaming as well. 500k for a PC game outside of StarCraft, WarCraft or Diablo is really good these days, as sad as that is. CoD was big when it started, but it was just "Call of Duty" now, after Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, and all the other follow ups, it's "HOLY SHIT CALL OF DUTY!"

Credit to Rockstar for not shitting out a GTA every year. Sure RDR was probably GTA on horses and LA Noire will be similar, but they easily could have milked GTA for all it's worth but they make great games in between them instead.

Yeah and RDR had cow rustling and donkey riding to point out two of the most obvious differences which were never in GTA so obviously the games are nothing like each other.

Not every post needs to be argued... : /

Post of the year.

_________________