Might get it if it drops to a low price / sale.
Nope. Played CoD non-stop for around 4 years, to the point of nearly reaching competition-level. Eventually it grows old on you and you realize how repetitive it is. Not to mention how little variation there is now from title to title.
I think a two or three year break from the devs (both) would do it a lot of good. Just come back in a few years with a new game that's actually JUSTIFIABLY 60$ and not just some re-skin of the last. But hey, that's just my opinion.
This Call of Duty will be bigger improvement over the last one, much bigger than Battlefield 4 over BF3.
OP is everything that's wrong with the PC gaming market right now. If people wouldn't keep buying this absolute crap they would actually be trying to improve their games. It's a real shame that they've turned the best FPS ever into this crap.
I'm getting BF4 as well. Can't wait. I'm not fanboying over either. Nor am i boycotting them like an angry basement dwelling nerd trying to fight the evil big gaming corporations and try and make a statement.
I'm getting BF4 as well. Can't wait. I'm not fanboying over either. Nor am i boycotting them like an angry basement dwelling nerd trying to fight the evil big gaming corporations and try and make a statement.
Most of the people with half a brain aren't getting BF4/new CoD because it's the same damn game as its last iteration.
Lord Berenger, you are entitled to your opinion, but everything you've listed is the reason that CoD has gone from the #1 shooter on PC to a shitty console arcade game.
I think that Berenger is more of a groupie of gaming scene than actual gamer. But I could be wrong about this.
Nah, he's just some weird Swedish guy that romanticises USA and various cultural stereotypes, like those infamous US console gamers, sitting in their student flats with an 8 year old TV playing CoD on Xbox 360.
Anything USA does, Berenger idolises.
Berenger and Zlisch are both EU outcasts, who went over to NA because nobody liked them on our side of the pond except a select few players from EU 4, which is an even more dubious sub-community of cRPG. It's good that even scum have a place to go to, truly.
Being a grammar natzee obviously better than above...
So what exactly got you to dough 60 or 70 or whatever ridiculous amount of money for this game when you can play the exact same thing for free because you already own one of the bazillion previous ones ?
Now i get it! It finally dawned on me. Reason why PC nurdz are hating on this is because you're having a dog as a companion and not the nerds number 1 pet a.ka cats.
Well FUCK YOU! Dogs and fishes rooolz!
I have a cat and i still think this franchise blows.
You just admit that my statement was right. So FUCK CATS!
Dogs are the shizz!
Deal breaker No.1 for me is modern warfare. I've tried to get into it but I can't (tried CoD4:MW, CoD4:MW2, BF2, BF3). It has something to do with me being a kid who actually witnessed "modern" warfare and don't like to see it in games or movies. I understand that doesn't matter to you who've seen war just on TV screen.
Deal breaker No.2 is the fact that you pay a lot for practically the same game as before. That would be fine if this game was 35-50 euros like FIFA, NBA2K, PES and other annual sports games. But both Battlefield and Call of Duty cost well over 100 euros (because of premium packages) and imho, that's why too much money for little improvement I see every year.
Call of Duty with proper mechanics and WWII setting (WWI would be even better because it's fresh setting) for 40 euro every second year is fine in my book. What both Activision and EA are doing is not fine.
And I blame console players for being fools who will eat every shit they throw at them. If they used their brain before buying everything that goes on TV with ad saying Buy me Fool! whole industry would try harder and games would end up being better than they are.
Why to make the prices high if there is a potential for greater demand?
because it still makes a great profit with these prices, why would you go below?
I'm pretty sure they teach you about price and demand in school.
All you need to know is, that the lowest bidder is the one that sells.
They don't have to lower the price, because they already sell it to everyone who wants to play it anyway. I think they could even increase the price and wouldn't lose a lot of customers.
Oh come on Bjord. You are not that pathetic.
You gave me an interesting thought.
Maybe, if they cut the price of games by half, that would mean it would be more affordable, which would lead to more people buying it, resulting in larger community.
Why to make the prices high if there is a potential for greater demand?
Deal breaker No.1 for me is modern warfare. I've tried to get into it but I can't (tried CoD4:MW, CoD4:MW2, BF2, BF3). It has something to do with me being a kid who actually witnessed "modern" warfare and don't like to see it in games or movies. I understand that doesn't matter to you who've seen war just on TV screen.
[...]Balkan war in the '90s?
You played COD IRL?
Deal breaker No.1 for me is modern warfare. I've tried to get into it but I can't (tried CoD4:MW, CoD4:MW2, BF2, BF3). It has something to do with me being a kid who actually witnessed "modern" warfare and don't like to see it in games or movies. I understand that doesn't matter to you who've seen war just on TV screen.
I'm pretty sure they teach you about price and demand in school.
Except that since the Vietnam war nobody shows true warfare on TV. During the first days of Irak we could see shiny fireworks and that's it.
They don't. And a little more advanced than that, price-demand elasticity is not understood by half the people you try to explain it to. Lowering the price of CoD titles would be economically retarded because those that buy it have proven to share a combination of sufficient mental deficit and sufficient addiction not to mind forking as much money as is required to get the next fix.
Hey hey hey, easy there. I meant good.
The theory was that if games were cheaper, people would be more willing to invest in them, thats all.
Balkan war in the '90s?
Were there nukes, marines, m4's, airstrikes, allahu snackbar terrorists, quickscoping snipers and knifers there?You're an ignorant.
Were there nukes?
Were there marines?
Were there m4's
Were there airstrikes
Were there allahu snackbar terrorists
Were there quickscoping snipers
Were there knifers there?
The theory was that if games were cheaper, people would be more willing to invest in them, thats all.
no
kinda, but they weren't involved in the beginning
tank or rifle?
a lot
yes, mujahedeens were fighting on one side
of course, ton of snipers everywhere
yes, but knives were used when raping and mutilating the innocent civilians. not to neutralize enemy soldiers from behind like in video games.
But in the case of EA that wouldn't mean more money. And we all know that EA's main goal is money.
Brb gonna put out millions of dollars to make a big AAA game 4 free.
Brb gonna put out millions of dollars to make a big AAA game 4 free.
What about brb gonna spend a couple thousand to make a game with greater quality and originality than AAA that will be sold 5 bucks per copy without DRM ?
a lot
You say the dumbest things, Nightmare.
just how did Prpavi decypher Kafeins post (or any of the recent ones) as PC elitism
Because bombs are effective but costly, and Americans have the money...? But Americans or not, they aren't exempt from the well established rules of war, such as the fact that you need infantry to hold and capture territory.
I know, that bombs themselves are not enough.Out of curiosity, how old are you?
I was rather referring to how they love to talk about their elite US marines and their pwning infantry, and then they go and bomb the hell out of any place they want to capture, instead of using their famous elite infantry forces to clean up the city of hostiles, rather than everyone.
Out of curiosity, how old are you?
why do you want to know?Because what you are saying is extremely childish. Real life is not a video game. Elite infantry or not, you don't risk their lives just because "they're elite." In fact, that's a reason not to risk their lives.
Because what you are saying is extremely childish. Real life is not a video game. Elite infantry or not, you don't risk their lives just because "they're elite." In fact, that's a reason not to risk their lives.
I am NOT reffering to any video game at all. If they were so well trained and equipped, they wouldnt have to resort to tactics that kill not only hostile forces, but also civilians that have nothing to dow ith it, and that didnt asked to take part in that conflict.You aren't referring to a video game, but you speak with video game mentality. The US Marines are indeed very well trained and equipped. But perhaps you could show me where the US has bombed a city full of civilians?
If they want to fight a war, should be ready to sacrifice their own troops, rather than civilians.
You aren't referring to a video game, but you speak with video game mentality. The US Marines are indeed very well trained and equipped. But perhaps you could show me where the US has bombed a city full of civilians?
As to your last sentence, really? Who died and gave you the authority to tell the US how to fight a war?
I think he's around 14-17. At least that's the ages where you can get away with using your asshole to talk instead of your brain.
I hope you're younger than 15, or you're seriously retarded. First, learn how a military works. The soldiers don't decide which battles to go in themselves. Second, how about you provide some actual links to bombings of cities full of civilians?
In every one of those countries and regions, at least one city was bombed with either artillery, or air strikes.
I am surprised you are so ignorant that you need me to tell you where and when did America used airstrikes.
I dont need nobodys permission to form my opinion about those so called elite forces of united states of america, that bomb the fuck out of civilians because they dont want to put their lives on line, despite being soldiers.
At least dont brag if you cant stand by your words.
And I'm sure the Muricans went in like "hookay lets kill all the civilians!" in these cases.
:/
Them not giving a fuck is what saddens me..............
Look, they can use whatever the tactics they want, but then they sholdnt brag about how uber awesome armed forces they have, when they do nothing but zipping around in bombers.
I hope you're younger than 15, or you're seriously retarded. First, learn how a military works. The soldiers don't decide which battles to go in themselves. Second, how about you provide some actual links to bombings of cities full of civilians?
http://cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htmYou realize that link does not support your claim of indiscriminate bombing of populated cities at all?
I already told you my opinion.
USA has piss poor overrated military that bombs whatever they want captured regardless of civilian losses.
I hope you're younger than 15, or you're seriously retarded. First, learn how a military works. The soldiers don't decide which battles to go in themselves. Second, how about you provide some actual links to bombings of cities full of civilians?
But perhaps you could show me where the US has bombed a city full of civilians?This kinda reminds me of a game called "Spec Ops: The line". Generally your average shit moderncombatgame in 3rd person, which is the reason i did not complete it entirely. There you litterally bomb an entire convoy full of women and children + you murder loads of more civilians along the way and cock alot of other things up basically by accident. The game realises that you probably must feel like the shittiest person on the planet so even the loading screen keeps reminding you with a message "You are still a good person".
Every city is full of civilians. But they choose their targets, it's not random bombings. At least it wasn't in case of Belgrade in 1999. Which is something I witnessed personally, don't need any links for that.Obviously there'll be collateral damage, always, no matter what is done. Civilians die when cities are bombed, but like you say, it isn't random and civilian casualties are avoided as much as possible.
Most Yugoslavians had to survive just one war and that was Civil War that was fought mainly in Bosnia and Croatia. I was unlucky to be born in Bosnia, survive that war then go to Serbia to have to deal with bombings four years after last war finished.
Despite the fact that NATO wasn't bombing randomly, many innocent civilians died. For example, technical staff of national television. They weren't informed by the government that NATO will bomb the building and they died. Of course, directors and other scum evacuated themselves before that happened but those people who do basic jobs and have nothing to do with actual propaganda died. Just like always, in wars die more innocent souls than those responsible for the whole mess.
Way bigger issue than bombing with ballistic projectiles was usage of forbidden weaponry, mainly bullets with depleted uranium and cassette bombs. Depleted uranium poisoned ground and just five years after the war, number of cancer patients massively increased in affected areas. Cassette bombs are still scattered somewhere in Kosovo area, thankfully that's very far from the place I live.
You realize that link does not support your claim of indiscriminate bombing of populated cities at all?
Your opinion is based on nothing but your own retarded, childlike fantasies about how war is fought.
It does and you would see it, were you not stupid enough not to read it.Sorry, IQ >80 only in this thread.
If you spent less time being a dickhead and more on research on this stuff, you would know that bombing is not always the way to go, you fucking military genius.
Bombing should be used in areas with high concentrations of hostile forces, not wherever you please.
I know that civilian losses are unavoidable, but they should strive to keep them as low as possible.
Them not giving a fuck is what saddens me.
Look, they can use whatever the tactics they want, but then they sholdnt brag about how uber awesome armed forces they have, when they do nothing but zipping around in bombers.
Sorry, IQ >80 only in this thread.
Obviously there'll be collateral damage, always, no matter what is done. Civilians die when cities are bombed, but like you say, it isn't random and civilian casualties are avoided as much as possible.
I think my irony wasn't obvious enough.
Oh well.
The thing is that civilians die, sadly yes. But they are not aiming for them like you say they do.
Then what the fuck are you still doing here?Wow, nobody saw that coming!!!!!!
Well of course they dont aim at them, but there are surely other ways to fight and win an armed conflict, than indiscriminate bombing.Look up the word "indiscriminate" in the dictionary.
Then what the fuck are you still doing here?Dude give it a rest. As much as I hate to admit it, he won atleast 3 pages ago.
Well of course they dont aim at them, but there are surely other ways to fight and win an armed conflict, than indiscriminate bombing.
Dude give it a rest. As much as I hate to admit it, he won atleast 3 pages ago.
the fact that Kafeins post was about Kickstarter and other sililar indie projects happening maily on PC and more the fact that we are discussing Call of Duty and everybody massively shitting on it, which is for the last 5 years at least a console shooter, they sell only 5% of every CoD for the PC, the rest goes to Xbox (over 50%) and PS3, small percentage for Wii.
I'm sorry if I misuderstood Kafeins and other posts but I kinda got the f console vibe from the topic. My rant still stands for the people that do think that way :mrgreen:
You aren't referring to a video game, but you speak with video game mentality. The US Marines are indeed very well trained and equipped. But perhaps you could show me where the US has bombed a city full of civilians?Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and, in more recent
As to your last sentence, really? Who died and gave you the authority to tell the US how to fight a war?
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and, in more recentHiroshima and Nagasaki ended a war that would've resulted in more casualties if fought the conventional way. It's hilariously absurd that you should compare that with a tank firing on a house and killing two people.warsinvasions, a tank firing on a house and killing two reporters, one Spanish and the other Polish.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended a war that would've resulted in more casualties if fought the conventional way. It's hilariously absurd that you should compare that with a tank firing on a house and killing two people.
Wait... wasn't this a thread about games?Well I tried to rerail and noone cared. :(
/me looks around...
Well I tried to rerail and noone cared. :(Lemme try:
That's your opinion.
Of course. But we can dig deeper into this if you like. There's one thing where Americans are the best in the whole wide world. That's marketing.
By going through their historical sources, one gets an impression that Japan was formidable force before WWII, just because they had decent planes. They even compare Japanese with Germany which is complete nonsense. Yes, Japs trashed China during the war but that's because at that time China was feudal state.
Also thanks to the work of Japanese historians, we now know much more about Japanese plans in the summer of 1945. Japan had no intention of surrendering. It had husbanded over 8,000 aircraft, many of them Kamikazes, hundreds of explosive-packed suicide boats, and over two million well equipped regular soldiers, backed by a huge citizen’s militia. When the Americans landed, the Japanese intended to hit them with everything they had, to impose on them casualties that might break their will. If this did not do it, then the remnants of the army and the militias would fight on as guerrillas, protected by the mountains and by the civilian population.
Why they didn't do that despite nuclear bombings? They were afraid they'll completely perish as a nation, is that what you believe? Well, America was strong during the war but I bet world wouldn't stay silent if USA tried to put an end to Japanese people once for all.http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/nuclear_01.shtml
That's fabricated bullshit and you know it. USA created industrialized Japan that fought the World War II. They didn't emerge on their own. They always were and always will be their pet.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/nuclear_01.shtml
Fabricated bullshit? Hardly. Japan is a country with long tradition of death before dishonor, of kamikaze attacks and suicidal charges. Now look at Afghanistan: a fucking backwater country with half-retarded population, yet it has surmounted many attempts of conquering it. Now think about Japan again, the martial traditions and the mindset of the Japanese, the nature and how well it lends itself to guerrilla warfare, the size of the population... the list goes on, but the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the nuclear bombings were the humane option.
Okay. But I'll ask you again. If that's the case, why Japs didn't keep doing their suicidal thing after nuclear bombs were dropped?Because the Emperor surrendered.
They were suicidal, but practical, not idiotic.
Well okay I quess they were idiotic, but I still like to think practical. Hei, aslong as you have humanlives and planes to spare go for a kamikaze I quess. Atleast that had a goal. Cripple the enemy with everything u got.
Yeah, because using machines of war that can destroy targets on their own as bombs instead is practical.
wat
Was gonna reply something important with facts and stuff but got tired halfway. Im sorry Christo. Can I send a detailed PM on a later date? :D
Dude give it a rest. As much as I hate to admit it, he won atleast 3 pages ago.
Nah, it was over the moment his white trash mother was penetrated by his white trash father. Stupidity runs in the genes.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended a war that would've resulted in more casualties if fought the conventional way. It's hilariously absurd that you should compare that with a tank firing on a house and killing two people.
The amount of stupidity is once again through the roof.
It practically ended when einstein blown his brains out all over the wall of his bunker.
which implies you are friend ape that does nothing all day but whores welfare and eats chickinz.
which implies you are friend ape that does nothing all day but whores welfare and eats chickinz.
Oh this forum censor can still make my day :lol:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
It's a .jpg
oh my...
No but seriously, I think Nightmare might be our first legit-retarded person on the forums. You'd only feel pity for him if he wasn't waving his ignorance around so proudly. But still, we should be more understanding of his condition. I for one apologize for my harsh words.
I, too, feel guilty, for my idea of a past time is not to make mockery of feeble minded children.
Nightmare798, I am truly sorry and I hope you lead a good life despite your condition.
Who knows, maybe if japan knew the truth, they wouldn't have surrendered shortly after the bombing of Nagasaki.
It's a .jpgvisitors can't see pics , please register or login
/me is heard muttering angrily.Sorry, what was that? Could you repea- oh, you're muted.
It wouldn't really have mattered, because they had nothing left apart from their pride. Well, it would have mattered for Tokyo, of course. What I mean is they were already defeated.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
How can anyone not buy this??????
GC: So the obvious assumption from all this is that the PlayStation 4 is definitely more powerful than the Xbox One, is that true?
MR: [acting very embarrassed] I can’t answer that.
GC: You can’t answer it on a technical level or because you’re being diplomatic?
MR: Can’t answer that.
GC: You can’t say whether you’re avoiding the question for diplomatic reasons?
MR: [embarrassed] I just can’t say anything…
[Even the attending PR guy is looking embarrassed by this point]
PR guy: It’s very hard for us to be…
GC: Are the console manufacturers leaning on you to avoid these sort of questions?
MR: [unsure - speaking to PR guy] I don’t know if that…
MR: [even more embarrassed to us] Yeah, there’s things that we… We sign NDAs with the first parties [i.e. Microsoft and Sony - GC] and there are things that we’re not allowed to talk about.
GC: So when John Carmack and Shinji Mikami say the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 are almost identical, is that something you could agree with?
MR: Hmm… I would say that’s a bit inaccurate but I wouldn’t be able to tell you any detail of why that’s inaccurate.
GC: For diplomatic reasons?
MR: Yes.
GC: Okay, that’s fine. I think we can all read between those lines. But that’s absurd, how can they not except any journalist, any reasonable journalist, not to ask that question? It’s what everyone wants to know.
MR: [still feeling very awkward] The key thing is we try to focus people away from that sort of thing and try to focus them on the fact that the game is fun no matter what platform it’s on.
well surely being the best console is more like winning the special Olympics. if people cared so much about 1080p they would have switched to pc gaming along time ago, the only reason they care is so they can use it to claim to win the console war (in which everyone is really a loser to corporate greed and propaganda).
anyway watched TB. aparently ghosts is worse gfx than blops2 and worse performance than bf4.
Proud that I refused to buy any cod games post 4, they just get worse each no - not exaggerating cod4 still the best.
so much inovation LMAO
haha guess Sony won this round :wink:
but in the name of Cod, id buy this just for the companion dogs, and if the multiplayer is any better then mw3/bops2 then id give it a go. I couldnt stand either of the multiplayers, just too much crap.
Not everybody is into building PC's and hardcore gaming nor do they have the time, Gaming has become a lifestyle. Not everybody plays obscure games and their even more obscure mods liek you and I do.
There are some people that enjoy casual gaming and have no problem buying 500/600 euro cosnole every 6/7 years and just play the games that come out and work fine without any gfx tweaking etc. Infact they are the majority of "gamers".
What is "killing the industry" are the "real" gamers that preorder shit, buy badges on Steam and other crap that casual gamers find charming. We are the ones that brought all this DLC bullshit together on ourselves and we continue to support it.
Yes we need both consoles and PC, so cut the crap pls
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
There's lots of new features such as female characters in MP, character customization with both changes to the characters face and gear amongst others.
Loved Cod2 and Cod4 last i bought was mw2 and bf3 and got bored really quick. guess i just need to long break from FPS :D
not exaggerating cod4 still the best.
Call of duty ghosts actually has a lot of new stuff!
If you haven't played since the first modern warfare like me. :)
You are sick.
You playíng Xbox or PS3? And also i will rape you if you kill the doggies ingame :/
It's just a bunch of pixelshttp://yudkowsky.net/other/fiction/npc
http://yudkowsky.net/other/fiction/npc
good read, fiction is fiction though :P Regardless, I wouldn't shoot down a companion that warns me and fights on my side, there's no point, it was just a remark on how gamers think. Some very annoying video game characters could really use a bullet though.
Anyway blabbering out online gamer mentality jokes and CoD hate bandwagon aside, how are the multiplayer maps now?
Please tell me they make 'em like back in the day, at least the size of Overgrown. (best cod map in my opinion)
Lol funny thing. Most maps are waaaay bigger than old maps (some almost as big as Overgrown) and here's the fun part. If you go to the COD forums and ask people most kidz seem to HATE that there's bigger maps lol. Probably because they have to adapt to bigger maps and can't just run around and spray n pray as easy with OP SMGs.
Lol funny thing. Most maps are waaaay bigger than old maps (some almost as big as Overgrown) and here's the fun part. If you go to the COD forums and ask people most kidz seem to HATE that there's bigger maps lol. Probably because they have to adapt to bigger maps and can't just run around and spray n pray as easy with OP SMGs.
On a side note, im having fun with BF4 atm, though i wish they would have fixed the net coding, i hate, FUCKING HATE, when you die behind cover, like i have already been running past a doorway for 2 seconds and fall over dead as if i was still standing in the open, really pisses me off. The older cods had a little bit of this, though not to the extent i have atm on bf4.
lol that's been present since BF3 beta, chance of EA actually fixing that netcode is like 0,0006%
kill cam?(click to show/hide)
kill cam?
kill cam?pointless rant:
Sounds like DayZ bundling of sticks with pokemon powers
I hate how infinityward never releases anything other than re-skins but meh. I still buy every CoD that comes out because it's fun for a little while and i'm not doing any damage by "boycotting" it.
Treyarch on the other could make a good CoD if they went back to WW2, man I loved Call of Duty : World at War.
Game doesn´t really look that great if you look at textures and all... would have expected more from "next gen" FPS game. With that kind of system req. game should look mind blowing IMO.
The game is not "next gen" but the same gen as the last what... 5 iterations of itatleast they advertise it as a "next gen" game :D
atleast they advertise it as a "next gen" game :D
I don´t really know if this game is really bad or not... BUT!
Minimum system requirements:
CPU: Intel® Core™ 2 Duo E8200 2.66 GHZ / AMD Phenom™ X3 8750 2.4 GHZ or better
RAM: 6 GB RAM
HDD : 40 GB HD space
Video: NVIDIA® GeForce™ GTS 450 / ATI® Radeon™ HD 5870 or better
Game doesn´t really look that great if you look at textures and all... would have expected more from "next gen" FPS game. With that kind of system req. game should look mind blowing IMO.
It's great. Now i'm running around with a dedicated noobtube build. Works great as long as enemies dont have blast shield. Mad sniper kidz using sniper rifle as shotgun gets put down easily.
There are no actual shotguns ?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8465-Call-of-Duty-Ghosts (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8465-Call-of-Duty-Ghosts)
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8465-Call-of-Duty-Ghosts (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/8465-Call-of-Duty-Ghosts)
Of course there are but haven't really been good since MW2. Miss my sexy akimbo pre-patch Model 1887s and SPAS-12.
Haha I remember the crazy range on the akimbo 1887s, good times.
So what is the story of this about? If it even has one.
(other than fish AI and dogs)
Is it russia stole nukes to kill USA USA USA patriotism game again? Is it at least somewhat interesting like bo2?
Yes I know I'm looking at the wrong genre for a story, but I want to hear it from you :D