Neoseeker : News : Call of Duty: Ghosts Multiplayer on Xbox One Hands-On: Damn that Dog
Sort by date: ascending descending
0 thumbs!
^
Huntereb Aug 17, 13
"This is Call of Duty, for better or worse. It's fun for a couple of hours, still."

What number in the series is this game? Like 13?
Staff
0 thumbs!
^
bluexy Aug 17, 13
huntereb This will be 10. Three main franchise, three Modern Warfare, and three Treyarch. Though you could make the case that the original three are incomparable to what the franchise became after Modern Warfare.
0 thumbs!
^
Mikau Kahn Aug 17, 13
bluexy I think you should start counting at Modern Warfare.
-2 thumbs!
^
Huntereb Aug 17, 13
quote bluexy
This will be 10. Three main franchise, three Modern Warfare, and three Treyarch. Though you could make the case that the original three are incomparable to what the franchise became after Modern Warfare.
quote Mikau Kahn
I think you should start counting at Modern Warfare.
Why's that? They're still a part of the series, correct?
Staff
2 thumbs!
^
bluexy Aug 17, 13
Huntereb Modern Warfare was a huge paradigm shift for the franchise. Where the first three games were based in World War II and largely PC-centric, Modern Warfare shifted to a near-future setting built for consoles. The most meaty change, however, came in multiplayer. Modern Warfare first introduced the structured multiplayer most people equate with the franchise anymore -- experience points and the unlocks that go with it, kill-streaks, prestiging and so on.

There's a lot to be said about how the single-player redefined the console shooter, too, but really it's the multiplayer that's so significant.
Last edited by bluexy :: Aug 17, 13
0 thumbs!
^
Mikau Kahn Aug 17, 13
quote Huntereb
Why's that? They're still a part of the series, correct?
Bluexy pretty much covered the jist of it, but I've personally only played MW2 and Black Ops (only the story mode and zombie modes of Black Ops).
0 thumbs!
^
Huntereb Aug 17, 13
It's still a part of the series though. You can't say that, for instance, Spyro 1 was a catastrophe of a game that was missing tons of key features to what the game is now, so I abolish it from being a part of the series, therefore Spyro 3 is actually Spyro 2. (Not my true feelings at all)

I'm going too far on this, I understand what you guys think about it, but online gaming back when these few games were around was just getting started (Or, just getting popular), so it's understandable that it lacked many of the key features of the series today. But without those first three games, where would the series be now? Games in a series are made on the premises that they are made better (Feature-wise, and even story-wise) as new one's are created. Without the original games, we wouldn't have what we have today.
Staff
0 thumbs!
^
bluexy Aug 17, 13
Huntereb Hahah, now you're just arguing semantics.
1 thumbs!
^
dilute Aug 17, 13
I really expect the series to bring something new this time, mainly because of the title of the game. Moreover, the ship part clearly shows why its name is Call of Duty: Ghosts.
I assure you guys that this game won't disappoint you fans. :-)
0 thumbs!
^
Mikau Kahn Aug 17, 13
quote Dilute
I really expect the series to bring something new this time, mainly because of the title of the game. Moreover, the ship part clearly shows why its name is Call of Duty: Ghosts.
I assure you guys that this game won't disappoint you fans. :-)
I'm not worried about it disappointing fans, I'm curious if it'll have a good enough single player campaign for me, a non-fan, to get it. I had my fill of competitive multiplayer shooters with MW2, so I'm waiting to see if there's a good single player section or a feature similar to Spec Ops. I have fond memories playing through those missions splitscreen with my sister before she went to collage.
1 thumbs!
^
THM Aug 18, 13
I'm inclined to buy Battlefield 4.
1 thumbs!
^
Animatrix Aug 18, 13
Battlefield 4 is still winning for me so far. They actually added a bunch of new things, and not just touched up on old-ass features.
-2 thumbs!
^
Miss Fortune Aug 18, 13
^This isn't a Battlefield 4 forum.

Christ, I never understood why people compare the two series. It's like comparing cheese to cake. Just because one has some of of the same stuff as the other, doesn't mean you can compare them respectively. Battlefield is strategic, team based FPS while Call of Duty is an arcade, twitch FPS.

You're better off comparing CoD to Halo or Counter Strike.
0 thumbs!
^
HilaryDuffGta Aug 18, 13
Looks intresting, will be fun for a few months until the "Call of duty Burnout" hits and i stop playing for a while
^
Sponsored
Sort by date: ascending descending
- This news story is archived and is closed to new comments now -
Newsletter
Latest News
Latest Inhouse
Tt eSPORTS Talon Blu Gaming Mouse Review ECS LIVA Mini PC Kit Review Phanteks Enthoo Luxe Full Tower Case Review CM Storm Mizar Gaming Mouse Review CM Storm NovaTouch TKL Keyboard Review MSI GTX 980 Gaming 4G Review
(0.2756/d/web8)