Why is there such a disconnect? Notice I'm not screaming this

Call of Duty Black Ops 4 General Discussion Forum

It saddens me the most that the one developer I trusted the most throughout the ENTIRE Call of Duty Franchise is getting this wrong now. I can't blame them of course because it's really Activision that tells them what they should make. But already, I have my concerns and this is becoming more of a trend and I don't quite like it.

 

I've been playing Call of Duty since the very first one came out, and I've enjoyed every single one of them, good and bad, up until Advanced Warfare. Why you may ask? Well, I'll tell you why. Micro-transactions. And with each year, the next game gets littered with them more and more. This is not the franchise I grew up loving. At this point, I want to see it die. And a few other things that have bothered me about Call of Duty today, the fact that this franchise is following stupid trends now. Battle Royale games, a Zombies mode in EVERY SINGLE GAME now? What happened to taking breaks in between genres and game modes? I want those back. When Every game after Advanced Warfare did Boost jumping and Zombies back-to-back I was furious. I don't mind if they want to test the waters with a futuristic fictional setting, but I want them to take breaks in between not make them for every game. 

 

I'm shocked to see just how disconnected Activision is from their Call of Duty fans. Seriously, we saw that when Infinite Warfare's reveal trailer came out and saw the dislikes only to compare it to Battlefield 1's success story. A game set in World War I would have been an AMAZING game in my opinion if it was done correctly. We already know a handful of Call of Duty characters took part in World War I, so why haven't we seen a World War I Call of Duty Game yet? I mean, we're not evening willing to see a compromise anymore with the playerbase. This franchise has become a laughing stock with all this colorful and this unrealistic nonsense we see today. 

 

Not to mention, how scared people have become when depicting real-life events. Apparently, it's not interesting enough. Hmm, odd since there's a lot of good films out there based on true stories and events that occurred. So why is there a disconnect? 

 

Seeing that this will just get buried under all the other comments and threads, if Activision or someone from any of the developers DOES see this, please just do this for me. Try and persuade your bosses to go and cover World War I, The Korean War (1950-1953) or another Vietnam War game because there is so much potential for the research and events there and it would be paying tribute to the veterans who served in those wars which is what Call of Duty used to be all about. And even if it's just this once, can we please see a game again that DOESN'T need Supply Drops of any kind. And seasonal events that aren't going to swindle players out of their money please.

 

Just some videos here that might shed some light about this:

Black Ops 4 Just Got Worse by the Act Man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyRsZTOvm14

Microtransactions Need To DIE!!! by the Act Man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBh1x-Fhfec

Call of Duty Fanboys try to defend WWII: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35KbcbozYK0

Why Was Call of Duty World at War So GREAT!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2w9QNNfEeU (Side note, the quote read at 5:30 mark is a REALLY good one. Told by a man who didn't like war, but despised people who wrote falsely about it)

And lastly, a video called Why Black Ops 1 is SO AWESOME!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sp0MOjQPO2w

 

Well, I'm done with my preaching. Hopefully, Activision will learn from their mistakes and save the franchise before it's too late. Because I'm about ready to go back to Medal of Honor again.

Wolfe9
Likes: 11
Posts: 143
Registered: ‎30-12-2016
4 REPLIES 4

Any product that has been around as long as COD will have changes to that product. I always roll my eyes with the "well Fortnite does ________". Good for them, let's see what their business model looks like after 10 game installments and a decade from now. Who knows, they might be like the neighborhood drug dealer that gives you the first few doses for free, gets you hooked, then starts making you pay. 

 

The micros don't bother me for a couple of reasons. If the game itself sucks ( like WW2 ) I won't play it long enough for it to matter. If the game is good ( like BO3 ) I'll play it enough to have a great chance at some extra loot. 

 

The myth is the SD guns are somehow "game changers", and they are certainly not. Each one that might have a "pro" stat, is balanced by a "con" stat in it's makeup. One might have a lot of damage, but it handles like a dump truck. One might have a high fire rate, but no range. One might have long range, but crazy recoil. 

 

My main concern is the removal of the kills/deaths stats in each game. As a highly competitive player ( I've been in the top 100 in the world across all 3 BO's ), I don't feel the ability to be top in the lobby based on "damage" is going to be much to brag about. I'll have to see the final product, but I believe this is a move to minimize better players standing out. COD has traditionally been a smack talking community game, and that seems to be lost recently in trying to dumb down and even the playing field. 

Goingdeep747
Likes: 790
Posts: 1346
Registered: ‎06-11-2015

You keep bringing up this fake "game changers" argument that isn t even the issue with anyone. It's been explained to you very well by many different people. It's not that the SD weapons are game changers (although some are). It's that they're locked behind a lottery wall AT ALL.  No weapons whatsoever should be locked behind a wall. NOBODY minded the system that bo3 launched with. Cosmetics only was fine and no one minded it. But, if you go back and even now, the issue is weapons locked behind a lottery system that most people will never get to use. This hurts many things, from competitiveness (because you can't have a competition if players aren't allowed the same equipment) it honestly baffles me that you claim to be a highly competitive player yet you're fine with them locking half the weapons behind a lottery system, and player retention I remember hundreds of posts on the bo3 forum where people said they quit simply because they hated the supply drop system.  And the #1 complaint about bo4? The supply drop dlc system. 

Even if it doesn't bother you personally surely you can see that it's unpopular in general. 

gotsomestars Level 75
Likes: 11279
Posts: 15179
Registered: ‎21-03-2013

@gotsomestars wrote:

You keep bringing up this fake "game changers" argument that isn t even the issue with anyone. It's been explained to you very well by many different people. It's not that the SD weapons are game changers (although some are). It's that they're locked behind a lottery wall AT ALL.  No weapons whatsoever should be locked behind a wall. NOBODY minded the system that bo3 launched with. Cosmetics only was fine and no one minded it. But, if you go back and even now, the issue is weapons locked behind a lottery system that most people will never get to use. This hurts many things, from competitiveness (because you can't have a competition if players aren't allowed the same equipment) it honestly baffles me that you claim to be a highly competitive player yet you're fine with them locking half the weapons behind a lottery system, and player retention I remember hundreds of posts on the bo3 forum where people said they quit simply because they hated the supply drop system.  And the #1 complaint about bo4? The supply drop dlc system. 

Even if it doesn't bother you personally surely you can see that it's unpopular in general. 


It baffles me that someone can think by simply using a minus / plus approach in a very general balancing concept can’t grasp how easy it would be to have a weapon, not EVER in the the lifetime of a game being available to all players can create an imbalance. That very naive individual would have to make a strong case that there was never a weapon out of of balance in the history of COD EVER since it has always been a minus plus approach for all weapons in all CODS. Difference is, now it’s not available to all players. It’s as if they think Treyarch can’t do no wrong, like a cult following or something.

MurkBeserk Level 75
Likes: 1673
Posts: 3893
Registered: ‎12-10-2016
Highlighted

@gotsomestars wrote:

You keep bringing up this fake "game changers" argument that isn t even the issue with anyone. It's been explained to you very well by many different people. It's not that the SD weapons are game changers (although some are).

 

First it's fake, then you say "some are" game changers. I don't think they can be both?

 

It's that they're locked behind a lottery wall AT ALL.  No weapons whatsoever should be locked behind a wall. NOBODY minded the system that bo3 launched with. Cosmetics only was fine and no one minded it. But, if you go back and even now, the issue is weapons locked behind a lottery system that most people will never get to use. This hurts many things, from competitiveness (because you can't have a competition if players aren't allowed the same equipment) it honestly baffles me that you claim to be a highly competitive player yet you're fine with them locking half the weapons behind a lottery system,

 

There are no SD gun(s) that can consistently ( game after game after game ) out perform a couple of the standard weapons. The best balanced guns are available to everyone. If I'm solo and going against a full party with some decent stats, I'll NEVER choose a SD gun. The SD guns can be "fun", but they are NOT a competitive option. 

 

and player retention I remember hundreds of posts on the bo3 forum where people said they quit simply because they hated the supply drop system.  And the #1 complaint about bo4? The supply drop dlc system. 

Even if it doesn't bother you personally surely you can see that it's unpopular in general. 


Look, I truly see your point. But for some to claim they quit a game over SD's, I think might be a far stretch. Even if I were to have zero new guns, I'd still be playing BO3.............because it's a dang good game. When I quit playing WW2 a month after release, I didn't blame it on anything but the game itself. Even if they GAVE guns away I wouldn't go back. 

Goingdeep747
Likes: 790
Posts: 1346
Registered: ‎06-11-2015

Studios