Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare Multiplayer Reveal, Gameplay and Discussion

[ExHaseo]

The games are fun on some occasions; like every sports and LEGO franchise though, it's best to only buy one for every several years. I, for one, will stick with the Treyarch games. They've always been my favorite CoD developer.

I hope you also find something other than Destiny. The game looks amazing, but Activi$ion tends to annualize every successful thing they touch. Notable examples: This, Guitar Hero and Skylanders.

I agree, they are fun on occasion, that's why I didn't say anything bad about it. They're just all the same. Which is why I'll stick with Destiny. It still plays like every other FPS, but it has actual content.

 

I also highly doubt that Destiny will become a yearly game. Bungie has never been the type of company to crank out games, they actually care about what they're doing. Also, with the amount of content, and type of game that Destiny is, it wouldn't be possible to release a yearly game. They'll probably release expansions/DLC every year, but that's no different than any other MMO or big name title.

[Rubieno]

This is gonna be the same shit as always: combine those Dashing Abilities, cloaking and other OP Mechanics with the Unbalanced weapons and you get this game

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rCXhiEmBo4

[Welmosca]

It looks like a damn jump fest.....but it looks different and that's a good thing when the subject is CoD.I wonder if the SP will be good enough to bring me back to CoD.

 

Nice touch with the scenarios,a lil inspiration from BF4 hu...anyway...I wonder if all maps will feature something like that tsunami.

[YoChiink_]

Hopefully its good it can't be worst than Ghost right?

[MACH_SPIKEZ593]

My brother and I have been calling this game "Crysis 4" since it was revealed to use exoskeletons which basically work as the same function of sorts as the Crysis games nanosuits.

 

All in all, the game really does look good especially now with the multiplayer shown more so I definitely will tinker around in multiplayer more in this game compared to Ghosts.

[movievet-dotcom]

This looks like it's going to be great! They've FINALLY switched it up. It's sad to see from many Youtube comments and other places that the 'Cod is the same shit every year' bandwagon still exists....

COD only changed, most likely, because of Battlefield 4 on consoles. Even with all of Battlefield's bugs, the game still crushed COD's. 

 

Battlefield's massive/better maps, better graphics, 64 player matches, vehicles, and better realism, finally put the nail in the COD coffin. 

 

I will say that that COD Advanced Warfare game you are showing here looks cool, but they changed the real war stuff because they can no longer compete with Battlefield, in that area. I bet you that's the reason. And I know people will say "but they are different games entirely". To which I say, call it what you want, but they were/are bitter rivals as the two top FPS war games on the market.

 

For the record, I have been playing Call Of Duty and Battlefield since they first came out on the PC, ages ago.

[G0LD3N_PR1ME]

It does look good and I am very excited to see what the 3rd game mode this year will be. 

[GoldenWolfHunter]

Call of Battlefield Crysis: Advanced Titanfall Halo edition.

[stitchesnscars]

Looks fantastic  to me i already pre-ordered for the 11/3 early release but I kind of pity them. 

-If they don't change enough people call them on it and say its a copy paste

- if they deviate from their formula just a hair everyone says "It looks just like (insert game here)".

They are in a no win situation no matter what they do. Personally I think they need to drop the COD name and just call it advanced warfare, just like hardline should not be prefaced with Battlefield if they truly want to differentiate it.

 

By the way for all the folks calling this a copy paste, there are  franchises other than cod that come out on a yearly basis that rarely change any gameplay. I think the reason why COD gets all the venom directed towards it is because of all the attention it receives. 

-Lego games

-Madden

[Parker]

COD only changed, most likely, because of Battlefield 4 on consoles. Even with all of Battlefield's bugs, the game still crushed COD's. 

 

Battlefield's massive/better maps, better graphics, 64 player matches, vehicles, and better realism, finally put the nail in the COD coffin. 

 

I will say that that COD Advanced Warfare game you are showing here looks cool, but they changed the real war stuff because they can no longer compete with Battlefield, in that area. I bet you that's the reason. And I know people will say "but they are different games entirely". To which I say, call it what you want, but they were/are bitter rivals as the two top FPS war games on the market.

 

For the record, I have been playing Call Of Duty and Battlefield since they first came out on the PC, ages ago.

 

So you acknowledge they are two completely different styles of FPS but you don't see why that means CoD doesn't need 64 players, huge maps and more realism? CoD is the Need for Speed of FPS, Battlefield is the Gran Turismo. CoD is a fast paced, arcade action game where it is fairly easy to pick up and play and if you're really serious about it there is a bit of depth as well whereas Battlefield is all about being as realistic and true to life as possible. Like GT, it is much harder to just pick it up and be competent, you need to spend time with the different guns to control the recoil, different vehicles to see how they control and even the player movements are much different and can take some time getting used to.

 

Just because Gran Turismo sells more on PlayStation systems, that doesn't mean that Need for Speed needs to take things out of GT's playbook and bring a more realistic experience to the table. That isn't what fans of Need for Speed want and fans of CoD don't want a Battlefield clone either, there is absolutely no reason for CoD to have massive maps like Battlefield, people complained about the size of the maps in Ghosts, could you imagine how boring the game would be with BF4 sized maps? 

 

CoD didn't change because Battlefield 4 "smashed it" (whatever that means, I'm fairly sure Ghosts outsold BF4), CoD changed because it changes every single year. There are three different developers for the franchise now so of course every new game will be different. The people that say CoD is just a copy and paste every year have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. While there may not be massive changes to the series each year, there are definitely some major changes that completely change the way people play the game.

 

That being said, I'd still love Treyarch to go back to WWII for their next game. It used to be overplayed which is why CoD 4 was such a refreshing game (well, one reason at least, the game was just plain awesome all around) but now that the modern warfare environment is the norm, going back to WWII could be badass. 

 

 

Parker

[movievet-dotcom]

So you acknowledge they are two completely different styles of FPS but you don't see why that means CoD doesn't need 64 players, huge maps and more realism? CoD is the Need for Speed of FPS, Battlefield is the Gran Turismo. CoD is a fast paced, arcade action game where it is fairly easy to pick up and play and if you're really serious about it there is a bit of depth as well whereas Battlefield is all about being as realistic and true to life as possible. Like GT, it is much harder to just pick it up and be competent, you need to spend time with the different guns to control the recoil, different vehicles to see how they control and even the player movements are much different and can take some time getting used to.

 

Just because Gran Turismo sells more on PlayStation systems, that doesn't mean that Need for Speed needs to take things out of GT's playbook and bring a more realistic experience to the table. That isn't what fans of Need for Speed want and fans of CoD don't want a Battlefield clone either, there is absolutely no reason for CoD to have massive maps like Battlefield, people complained about the size of the maps in Ghosts, could you imagine how boring the game would be with BF4 sized maps? 

 

CoD didn't change because Battlefield 4 "smashed it" (whatever that means, I'm fairly sure Ghosts outsold BF4), CoD changed because it changes every single year. There are three different developers for the franchise now so of course every new game will be different. The people that say CoD is just a copy and paste every year have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. While there may not be massive changes to the series each year, there are definitely some major changes that completely change the way people play the game.

 

That being said, I'd still love Treyarch to go back to WWII for their next game. It used to be overplayed which is why CoD 4 was such a refreshing game (well, one reason at least, the game was just plain awesome all around) but now that the modern warfare environment is the norm, going back to WWII could be badass. 

 

 

Parker

First things first, I completely agree that COD should go back to the WWII. Those were my favorite COD series. Secondly, all I'm saying is that COD and Battlefield are the two main competing FPS franchises. Don't you remember last year with the war of words between the two companies? And as well, both Battlefield and COD are essentially the same each year. Being a Battlefield player since 1942, I always knew that as soon as Battlefield was able to do what it did on the PC (64 players), then COD's days as being #1 were over. I am a big COD fan, however, COD fanboys talk so much shit about Battlefield that I was happy when Battlefield took over. I saw it happening, I knew it would come to fruition.

 

Ya, they are two different styles of games, but tell the fans of each franchise that talk shit to each other non stop that. Tell that to the guys in charge of the franchises. I have not checked the numbers as far as who made more money this year, but if you(people in general) have been paying even the slightest bit of attention, I'm sure you can tell that people are giving up on COD more now and going over to Battlefield. Like I did from the XBOX 360 to the PS4.

 

Like I said though, I have been a COD fan since the beginning, but a lot of the fans of that series are a-holes. They are. Good game for what it is (don't know another game that does what they do better), and I agree with your comparison of the COD/NFS and Battlefield/GT.

 

Finally, I wasn't BSing about thinking that the new COD looks cool. Could be great, but I still believe they changed it up mainly because of Battlefield and because they kept hearing from fans how it was the same. Personally, I just think that with all the options that Battlefield gives you, that it could ride a similar style for longer than COD.

 

I'm real tired right now so my bad if I rambled and didn't get to everything you said. 

[Parker]

First things first, I completely agree that COD should go back to the WWII. Those were my favorite COD series. Secondly, all I'm saying is that COD and Battlefield are the two main competing FPS franchises. Don't you remember last year with the war of words between the two companies? And as well, both Battlefield and COD are essentially the same each year. Being a Battlefield player since 1942, I always knew that as soon as Battlefield was able to do what it did on the PC (64 players), then COD's days as being #1 were over. I am a big COD fan, however, COD fanboys talk so much shit about Battlefield that I was happy when Battlefield took over. I saw it happening, I knew it would come to fruition.

 

Ya, they are two different styles of games, but tell the fans of each franchise that talk shit to each other non stop that. Tell that to the guys in charge of the franchises. I have not checked the numbers as far as who made more money this year, but if you(people in general) have been paying even the slightest bit of attention, I'm sure you can tell that people are giving up on COD more now and going over to Battlefield. Like I did from the XBOX 360 to the PS4.

 

Like I said though, I have been a COD fan since the beginning, but a lot of the fans of that series are a-holes. They are. Good game for what it is (don't know another game that does what they do better), and I agree with your comparison of the COD/NFS and Battlefield/GT.

 

Finally, I wasn't BSing about thinking that the new COD looks cool. Could be great, but I still believe they changed it up mainly because of Battlefield and because they kept hearing from fans how it was the same. Personally, I just think that with all the options that Battlefield gives you, that it could ride a similar style for longer than COD.

 

I'm real tired right now so my bad if I rambled and didn't get to everything you said. 

 

CoD fanboys talk shit and Battlefield fanboys talk shit too. In my personal experience though the Battlefield fanboys are a lot worse, not so much in their shit talking but their elitist attitude is quite disgusting to me. I've played BF4 on both PC and PS4 and when someone mentions CoD you have the fanboys raging about how these goddamn CoD players are ruining the game or franchise and CoD players are fucking idiots, retards, no cock having dimwits and anything else you can think of. Basically, fanboys are idiots, it doesn't matter if they're fanboys of CoD, Battlefield, PlayStation, Xbox or Nintendo, fanboys are idiots and they'll talk all sorts of shit to people who prefer the other franchise. When you have to fanboys arguing, that is when people lose faith in the gaming community...

 

I honestly don't think there is a definitive FPS. For you Battlefield might be better because of the 64 players, huge maps, awesome vehicles, realistic weapons and recoil and everything else that makes a Battlefield game, but another person may really, really prefer arcade style shooters and love CoD because of the small maps, easy weapon handling and fast paced action. It doesn't mean one game or franchise is objectively better than the other, it just means you have different preferences. 

 

Now that Battlefield will be a yearly franchise (or it seems that is what EA is trying to so) it will be interesting to see how that affects sales for both BF and CoD. People don't seem to have a problem with multiple studios handling CoD so I wonder if the BF community will have a problem with DICE splitting the duties now.  

 

 

Parker

[Notguilty03]

A mix between Crysis and Titanfall. Awful, just awful.

[Bendelow4]

I'm sure the game will be great but for me personally Call of Duty needs to just disappear.

[Berryjammy5]

i hate cod with a passion..... BUT this looks to be adressing my main problem with the series. they actually did something different. its FINALLY a new cod and not a slightly modified version of 4. im mean, i still wont buy it on account of the fact that i hate shooters and multiplayer games, but i do apprectiate them actually makeing a new game. unfortunatly, it came 7 years to late.

[movievet-dotcom]

CoD fanboys talk shit and Battlefield fanboys talk shit too. In my personal experience though the Battlefield fanboys are a lot worse, not so much in their shit talking but their elitist attitude is quite disgusting to me. I've played BF4 on both PC and PS4 and when someone mentions CoD you have the fanboys raging about how these goddamn CoD players are ruining the game or franchise and CoD players are fucking idiots, retards, no cock having dimwits and anything else you can think of. Basically, fanboys are idiots, it doesn't matter if they're fanboys of CoD, Battlefield, PlayStation, Xbox or Nintendo, fanboys are idiots and they'll talk all sorts of shit to people who prefer the other franchise. When you have to fanboys arguing, that is when people lose faith in the gaming community...

 

I honestly don't think there is a definitive FPS. For you Battlefield might be better because of the 64 players, huge maps, awesome vehicles, realistic weapons and recoil and everything else that makes a Battlefield game, but another person may really, really prefer arcade style shooters and love CoD because of the small maps, easy weapon handling and fast paced action. It doesn't mean one game or franchise is objectively better than the other, it just means you have different preferences. 

 

Now that Battlefield will be a yearly franchise (or it seems that is what EA is trying to so) it will be interesting to see how that affects sales for both BF and CoD. People don't seem to have a problem with multiple studios handling CoD so I wonder if the BF community will have a problem with DICE splitting the duties now.  

 

 

Parker

If I had to pick one game, ya, I would pick Battlefield, but the bottom line is you are correct in that they are two different games, because they are. Different styles all together. But they are similar enough (war/FPS) that if I am going to play a war game I will not pick COD. But for what it is, COD is a bad ass game and I will always be a fan of it. As far as Battlefield fans talking shit, I believe you, but I don't hear it to the extent that I hear COD fans talking. Maybe because there is less talking in Battlefield? Not sure. Also, did you say that Battlefield will be having multiple studios doing their games now like COD? News to me.

 

If COD makes another WWII game, I am on board. I still miss the bouncing betty bombs. Matter of fact, if this new style (new COD) is good, then it is different enough that I would mess with it. I have always liked Halo, but it was never fast enough or had good enough guns for me to play, so if COD can combine their style with Halo/Crysis/Titanfall, then count me in for sure. That and/or COD WWII would bring me back to were I buy the games again.

Edited August 12, 2014 by movievet-dotcom

[Parker]

If I had to pick one game, ya, I would pick Battlefield, but the bottom line is you are correct in that they are two different games, because they are. Different styles all together. But they are similar enough (war/FPS) that if I am going to play a war game I will not pick COD. But for what it is, COD is a bad ass game and I will always be a fan of it. As far as Battlefield fans talking shit, I believe you, but I don't hear it to the extent that I hear COD fans talking. Maybe because there is less talking in Battlefield? Not sure. Also, did you say that Battlefield will be having multiple studios doing their games now like COD? News to me.

 

If COD makes another WWII game, I am on board. I still miss the bouncing betty bombs. Matter of fact, if this new style (new COD) is good, then it is different enough that I would mess with it. I have always liked Halo, but it was never fast enough or had good enough guns for me to play, so if COD can combine their style with Halo/Crysis/Titanfall, then count me in for sure. That and/or COD WWII would bring me back to were I buy the games again.

 

I think part of the reason we don't hear as much shit talking on Battlefield is because you can only talk to your squad whereas in CoD you can hear and talk to your whole team. I can't fault DICE for making it like that though because I can imagine listening to 31 other people on your team would be extremely distracting. 

 

Did you see anything about Battlefield: Hardline? It isn't being developed by DICE, Visceral Games (the guys behind Dead Space) are taking the helm for that title. If it is successful I imagine EA will try to do what Activision does and have their main FPS game have a yearly release schedule. 

 

 

Parker

[movievet-dotcom]

I think part of the reason we don't hear as much shit talking on Battlefield is because you can only talk to your squad whereas in CoD you can hear and talk to your whole team. I can't fault DICE for making it like that though because I can imagine listening to 31 other people on your team would be extremely distracting. 

 

Did you see anything about Battlefield: Hardline? It isn't being developed by DICE, Visceral Games (the guys behind Dead Space) are taking the helm for that title. If it is successful I imagine EA will try to do what Activision does and have their main FPS game have a yearly release schedule. 

 

 

Parker

Makes sense though about the other developer because I was wondering how a new Battlefield game was coming out so soon. I have been busy enough I guess where I wasn't aware of that, no. I see though that they saw the potential in the game Payday and are expanding on it with the whole cops and robbers thing. Not sure if they will have big maps or how it will work out. Good luck to them. If it's good, I'll get it.

 

I'm actually glad that they are taking more time on Hardline though so they don't screw it up (probably still will to some degree) with bugs like BF4.

[Cold_Indrid]

Looks like they might be back. Not sure if there's any Zombies or Extinction DLC.... But if there's not, Pass the Galil.

[Chipapa3]

So far, everything looks good. I will be picking this up. You will always have haters. That's the internet though. To hate on something is in.