/v/ - Video Games

Shameless bump

>>15165952

1. They won't

2. Why do you care about shit companies making shit games

>>15165919

>How will Activision damage control Black ops 4 flopping?

By still making millions off of fanboys

>>15166085

What’s the odds Activision will remake most of the popular call of duty games?

>>15165919

>They are making Battlefield V and EA look good by comparission

aka Battlefield Vagina

aka Battlefield "Our vision of history" V

That is looking good for you due to bo4 flopping? C'mon now.

>>15167200

That's the thing

They're both looking so bad normalfags no longer know which one to pick.

>>15167209

If only they realized "neither" was a valid option.

"Pretend realistic military shooters" have been done too much. My relationship with Battlefield has been that I've been playing them since BF1942. BF3 was ok, BF4 was bad, BF1 looked bad, I just assumed it was two bad entries. After seeing BFV, it's quite clear the series is done for and out of creative ideas.

Battlefield has standards of how fun the game can be, specially since the series is going back to WW2. I took one look at BFV, thought about all the fun I had with BF1942, and realized I'd never have as much fun with BFV that I did with BF1942.

>we've already done Battlefield WW2

>BF tries to take itself too seriously now

>the main addition to BFV seems to be changing character models in the game which adds nothing to the game

>a bunch of stupid game modes like stringing several maps together in a multiplayer "campaign"

>wow you can move artillery now

Everything else about it just looks like incrimental updates. The graphics are a little better, destruction is a little better, etc. Even ignoring BFV's ridiculous political pandering and them thinking that somehow the character models are what keeps girls from playing army games, it looks like it's nothing new and exciting.

I think CoD is going through the same thing, the series is just worn out and gamers have had enough. The decreasing sales are the more hardcore fans realizing it's a bunch of bullshit and bailing, with the slower ones starting to realize it.

Sadly, their response to this is going to be

>the CIS white male gamer is dead because their games didn't sell well

>racist, homophobic, misogynistic gamers caused BFV to sell poorly

and more bullshit like that. They will blame it all on gamers they don't like, while the soyboy gaming bloggers will celebrate the death of a "toxic" genre of games

>>15167223

That's my point

Some of them are

Of course, most of the cattle isn't, most of these still buy Madden/FIFA every year.

>>15167242

All I wanted was an arcadey well thought out game with no SJW bullshit or kikery.

But you gotta milk that cattle for them investors.

>>15167189

>WWII sold less than Infinite Warfare

I hope CODfags will shut up about how they want their historical setting.

>>15167306

>historical setting

>nigger women in SS uniforms

>recruitment videos featuring niggers and women

>>15167306

CoDfags don't understand a single thing about how the industry or game design works.

They want a game similar to the old ones and think just because the gameplay is pretty much the same, that putting a modern CoD on a WW2 setting will be just the same as those old games.

What they don't understand it that modern CoD game design, despite similar gunplay, is completely different from those older games.

Plus DLC and microtransaction kikery

>>15167242

"Pretend realistic military shooters" are a funny niche to look at, since they screw themselves with how they are structured and their core playerbase.

The current model of "make the same game but with more polish and small sprinkles of content" is a good idea in the shorterm. It's easy to make, you can bank on your IP for a long time, you get extremely familiar gameplay and world building to keep your playerbase and it can be done yearly so it's basically certain money every year, especially since all you need for normalfags is better graphics every year.

But it's advantages are also some of it's flaws. You can't innovate at all, you'll alienate your current playerbase with newer gameplay trying to atract new players that either already have whatever you copied into your game somewhere else or what you came up with isn't even a good idea to begin with. So you're stuck making the same thing all the time.

You also can't take longer than 1-2 years making the next iteration, otherwise you'll screw the balance of your company and the trust of your investors.

You also can't create new IPs, since that's wasting the previous one (doesn't look good for investors) and takes a lot more creative effort to make an entire new world\setting.

And since the graphics have pretty much plateau'd now, with improvements being done in areas not noticeable at a first glance, the differences between the iteractions of these games are less noticeable every year. For normalfags, they mostly see the exact same game (ironically) and get less reasons to buy them.

So basically, Activision can't make a different CoD. Not because they can't, but because they'd lose players to win a new playerbase they don't even know if it really exists, and it'd cost them a lot of money and time to even attempt it. But at the same time, they can't keep making the same thing, since graphics are becoming less of an argument and normalfags have less and less reasons every year to buy these games, especially since they go by peer pressure and popularity alone, where Fortnite and LoL or a bunch of other crap is gaining ground.

Basically, they can either let the tumor kill them in a few years or shoot their head and hope it removes the tumor alone instead of most of their brain.

>>15167325

They are clueless, but pointing out why CoD went this road gets you called a bitter nerd. And its being more than ten years with ever increasing consumer exploitation, if nobody learns than its hard to change anything.

Funny how the old CoD players will be replaced by new ones, as the times goes on and games keeps on coming, that will accept even more bullshit.

>>15167357

Wrong. A good developer who wants to make the game can work wonders to any genre.

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater was another "pretend realistic game", and that series consistently innovated up until the developers found something better to do (guitar hero). Each entry added new mechanics which changed the gameplay so much, the past entries became outdated. While you can point to certain causes for the series' demise, the fact that the game could exist at all is surprising. Taking real tricks, real skateboarders, and many other realistic elements, and morphing it into some indescribable singleplayer score-based game with elements from fighting games, is impressive even on paper.

So, if there's a good development team behind it, why can't you take real guns, real battles, and real death counts, and morph it into something like an arena shooter with an action movie tone? And why can't that series innovate off each entry, adding new mechanics that make previous entries outdated? Activision/EA may have mishandled the series and put themselves in this ditch, but there's no reason it shouldn't work. Their only options now are to evolve into something completely different, or die out. The aforementioned Guitar Hero suffered that same fate

>>15167450

"Each entry added new mechanics which changed the gameplay so much, the past entries became outdated."

And that alone is reason to never buy them. Why buy a game that have the possibility of becoming outdated? Just because the market demands it? If there is the smallest chance of something that i buy for entertainment to become outdated, i won't buy at all. I will wait to either pirate it, or never bother with it.

>>15170306

It is a model that works better in single player where you can focus it around a story/setting or whatever that is unique to the game. That model is largely similar to the older Tales games, at least the set that the west saw. Each game iterated on itself, tried some different things, took what worked and expanded and dropped what they thought didn't work. However, the stories, settings, and characters meant that even some of the outdated ones could be considered more fun than the newer ones. They also had the different "gimmicks" that were things they tried for a game and then dropped.

That is also assuming the iterations don't destroy what people liked about the game or screw it up in a way that makes what should be an iteration into a side step. For example, DMC3 to DMC4. In DMC3, the styles are much more fleshed out, but you can only have one at a time, and there were more of them. In DMC4, they introduced style switching which would be a natural evolution of the styles, but the styles did not have as much going on individually. It would be perfectly natural for people to prefer the old system in that case. Of course, when you include DMC4 being half finished, it does come off like a step back.