The CallOfDuty community offers support, collaboration, and shared experiences among players.
The CallOfDuty community offers support, collaboration, and shared experiences among players.
I watched the Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare reveal trailer on YouTube. It was impressive—really cool, and the gameplay seems solid. I posted my thoughts in the comments, but it got a lot of negative feedback. People are calling it toxic, saying the future feels overhyped and that only a remastered version would be fair. Some even criticized it before the game even launched, pointing out how the community is full of young fans who seem overly critical.
You addressed your own inquiry. The trailer doesn't clearly state whether CoD 4 Remastered will be available separately or only with the old Infinite Warfare version. If it's only tied to the legacy edition, it's understandable people are upset. This approach could help boost profits and prevent a drop in overall sales if released together.
Customers often express their opinions. They say things like "omg fallout new vegas what is this ugly look?!" or "zenimax, I hate you," even though they’re just 9 years old. Despite that, the game turned out to be amazing.
The complaints about future shooters began years back. It started with Call of Duty MW3 – considered the last truly modern shooter. Then Bo2, Ghosts, Bo3, Advanced Warfare, Infinite Warfare followed in quick succession. Fans grew weary of this endless cycle. Everyone still thinks it’s just another CoD title, so people keep buying whatever is available. There’s been a lot of repetition, yet the games feel almost identical. It’s not much different from what came before: similar graphics, mechanics, and gameplay. Only AW stands out with wall running. Still, it’s all essentially the same franchise.
Because everyone fears change, they do. You noticed the criticism of GTA 5... it was truly impressive, even if the driving physics were a bit odd. Yet many claimed Los Santos lacked soul. Someone who spent over 500 hours on GTA 4 must have formed such strong opinions, which people did.
This third sci-fi release feels repetitive and annoying. Activision, Infinity Ward, and Treyarch seem more focused on profit than responding to what fans actually want. It's not about real change—it's just a cycle of the same content over and over again. Some might call it "change," but we've already moved from modern to futuristic, and no one seems to like that shift.
Assassins Creed 1 through 6 share the same essence yet offer distinct experiences each time. It’s about the core gameplay that keeps you engaged, regardless of enjoyment level. I’ve only played Code Red 4 and Black Opps 3, but the story remains memorable. As a CS:GO player with three years of experience, I appreciate modern graphics and engaging maps, even if some elements feel repetitive. The fun comes from the battlefield itself—modern shooters all share that vibe, though opinions vary within the community.
Battlefield is returning to a more traditional style, likely boosting sales since the COD community is weary of the futuristic trends.
The distinction lies in the settings and experiences. Call of Duty spans various eras with unique rules, characters, and plots. The campaigns often stand out, offering engaging gameplay. GTA V is an expansive open-world experience set in a realistic environment, featuring diverse maps and evolving narratives. Battlefield focuses on modern urban warfare, with multiple titles offering distinct settings and mechanics. Battlefield Bad Company and BC2 bring historical twists, while Battlefield Hardline shifts the focus to police versus criminals. Each game brings new features and stories, though recent campaigns have faced criticism. Overall, these titles differ significantly in style and content compared to one another.