Tanooki wrote:The only one I found moderately interesting was Ghost but I've never replayed it.
It's not just the stupid stories it's also all the stupid fluff for kill junkies and the terrible shortness of the campaigns. The old WW2 games on a first play through even on easy would take numerous more hours to knock off so you really got your monies worth if you weren't just some online kill jockey tool.
Yep, basically. Advanced Warfare was good IMO, but that's probably because I have a super hard-on for Kevin Spacey. Black Ops III was legitimately a great campaign and I highly recommend that for anyone who likes the FPS genre for the campaign alone. To hell with the multiplayer - it's okay at best - but damn, that campaign is great.
ExedExes wrote:CoD and MoH back in the days meant a whole lot more to me. The single player campaigns were much more meaningful, and these days the emphasis is far more on multiplayer. That's why I'm hoping next month's TR will take those back who are more familiar with the newer annual releases and they get a chance to see how the series started as well as the WWII roots.
Tomb Raider?
Single player campaigns are just there to sell a package now as not just a multiplayer game, yet they might as well be in most cases. It is why when Wolfenstein popped up 2 years ago I was all over that as root play was made the only experience, no multi at all and it showed as it was fantastic.
Single player campaigns are just there to sell a package now as not just a multiplayer game, yet they might as well be in most cases. It is why when Wolfenstein popped up 2 years ago I was all over that as root play was made the only experience, no multi at all and it showed as it was fantastic.
Seems to me like it's mainly a few series that are like that for single vs multiplayer, not the industry as a whole. Even then, plenty of multiplayer staples have been mods or games with no real campaign outside of fighting bots. At least there's something? I dunno. I've played one CoD game (Modern Warfare), and didn't care for the infinitely-respawning nests of enemies, so I haven't played more of them, regardless of theme.
Tanooki wrote:It is why when Wolfenstein popped up 2 years ago I was all over that as root play was made the only experience, no multi at all and it showed as it was fantastic.
Same here. It was a fucking AMAZING game. I feel the same about Doom's single player; it really shows that their focus was the single player with multiplayer as a tacked on afterthought (the opposite of how recent Battlefield and Call of Duty games - with the exception of Black Ops III and maybe Advanced Warfare - feel).
What you guys need to realize about the transition from WWII to modern combat in Call of Duty is that, at the time, journalists, fans, and FPS critics were complaining about how common the WWII setting was in FPS. Hell, one war is considered its own subgenre, with dozens of games set in it. By the time Call of Duty 4 came out, more FPS games were set in WWII than in every other war combined. Folks were tired of the setting and hungry for something new. Hell, by the time we got to Call of Duty 4, there had been...7 Call of Duties across PC, consoles, and handhelds, all set in WWII.
Now yes, Call of Duty 4 proved successful, and Activision just kept pumping them out after that, only occasionally going back to the WWII setting that got everything started. Now we're tired of what CoD4 has done...just as we were about what Call of Duty had helped do a decade ago. But at the time, CoD4 was fresh, new, and frankly necessary. Yes, it has a linear campaign and focused a lot of effort on multiplayer that was actually a lot of fun and offered some entertaining customization for those of us who were into it. Yes, it also continued many elements that had been introduced for console-based FPS games that many of us loathe. And yes, its influence has rippled through gaming with some unanticipated consequences that have ultimately become stale. But we needed it in 2007. It was new, it was different, and it was fresh and exciting in a way that wasn't.
Now we get that feeling from games that are going back to recapture the old school feel, so maybe the next sea change will be to move in that direction. Who knows? We could certainly use a new transition. But come on, guys, don't knock the last transition just because it ended up influencing so many me-too devs and caused a major production studio to do the same thing that just about every major production studio is doing these days in gaming. Because is Activision really any worse than Square, Capcom, or Ubisoft currently? No, they're all just pumping out the same thing over and over again, living off of past glories and names people know when they aren't in-the-know about their games, genres, and gaming history.
What actually has photo realistic graphics? Outside of sims or something, most I can think of have some artistic license to them, and look more like concept art in motion.
Actually making things look real will probably be nice for VR/AR though.
isiolia wrote:What actually has photo realistic graphics?
Nothing yet has true verbatim photo realistic graphics. But video games as a medium is full of developments ever aiming towards that supposed ideal. A few recent examples:
