Angry Joe reviews Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare

[Rubieno]

Enjoy!

 

 

[BlindMango]

"Press F to Print Money" I love Angry Joe Reviews, thanks for posting this!

[Dead Weight]

you control Troy Baker? Now I'm a bit more interested

[StrickenBiged]

That was entertaining. Thanks for sharing.

[Sir_Bee]

I am curious what "evolution" he expects?  Uplink being a new mode to play, the exosuits proving new mobility and verticality to the maps.  Adding some future tech to your list of weaponry.  All of this seems like evolution to me, so I am just not sure what people expect?  Is it because it shares the name COD and is a FPS that people will just hate on it for being "more of the same".  He also says that the single player is very polished and enjoyable, but its a problem because it is 'linear' or 'on rails'.  Why is that a bad thing?  Not every game needs a sandbox, or a crafting menu, or RPG stats.  There is nothing wrong with a polished on rail shooter.  If you want a sandbox, you have choices for them, but that doesn't mean that non-sandbox games should be rated poorer.

 

Also, you don't need an original idea to make something fun.  Yea jetpacks have been done before, but that doesn't mean that if they are done well they won't be fun.

 

I am saying all of this having not played the game, and not even really being a big COD fan, I just don't understand all of this talk about evolution, and the requirement for originality.

[Happy]

I am curious what "evolution" he expects?  Uplink being a new mode to play, the exosuits proving new mobility and verticality to the maps.  Adding some future tech to your list of weaponry.  All of this seems like evolution to me, so I am just not sure what people expect?  Is it because it shares the name COD and is a FPS that people will just hate on it for being "more of the same".  He also says that the single player is very polished and enjoyable, but its a problem because it is 'linear' or 'on rails'.  Why is that a bad thing?  Not every game needs a sandbox, or a crafting menu, or RPG stats.  There is nothing wrong with a polished on rail shooter.  If you want a sandbox, you have choices for them, but that doesn't mean that non-sandbox games should be rated poorer.

 

Also, you don't need an original idea to make something fun.  Yea jetpacks have been done before, but that doesn't mean that if they are done well they won't be fun.

 

I am saying all of this having not played the game, and not even really being a big COD fan, I just don't understand all of this talk about evolution, and the requirement for originality.

By my understanding it comes down to this: Does your successor to an existing game do enough to differentiate itself from previous installments and improve on the existing mechanics to a degree that would justify for the consumer to pay a 60-70$ pricetag? If yes, great. If no, what is the point to developing said game if not to make money? But i'd agree that most other titles in the franchise are much more guilty of this than this one.

[Sir_Bee]

By my understanding it comes down to this: Does your successor to an existing game do enough to differentiate itself from previous installments and improve on the existing mechanics to a degree that would justify for the consumer to pay a 60-70$ pricetag? If yes, great. If no, what is the point to developing said game if not to make money? But i'd agree that most other titles in the franchise are much more guilty of this than this one.

 

Digging a little deeper into this, even if all features were exactly the same.  IE same guns, same modes, same kill streaks, same perks.  When they release a new game, you do get a whole new pack of maps (which they sell for 30-40 on their own if I am not mistaken) a whole new single player story (whether you like it or not, it is there), and usually a new co-op mode (zombies, spec ops, survival).  Many games sell for much less than those features.  Now add on top of that new guns, occasionally a new game mode, and some new perks and killstreaks (or a change to the way the system handles streaks) and you have even more content.  I guess that is where I get hung up.  If they were to make this game, exactly the way it is now, but call it something other than COD, I would not be surprised if the people hating on it now would not be having the same hates.

[Saltyie]

Seems like he is rating it based on how much it has changed, not what it brings to the table. Advanced Warfare is actually my favourite CoD, I thought it at least deserved an 8+.

[Myntero]

Personally I found this COD a little refreshing. I waned off the series gradually since the heights of MW2. But this has along with next gen has got me back into the multiplayer big time.

It's never gonna be revolutionary improvements because it's a franchise. Much like recent pannings of Unity from Ubisoft, it's a victim of its own heights and successes.

On another note in reference to value for money, I always imagined a single standalone game in the franchise would be more profitable with DLC maps, modes and mods released a few months apart constantly all year round, year after year. That format is similar to DC online. Could even charge per 180 days like DC. Not that I'm promoting that idea haha

[Rubieno]

He's a fan of tactical shooters so you should take that into consideration, but it still is a valid review IMO

[Sir_Bee]

He's a fan of tactical shooters so you should take that into consideration, but it still is a valid review IMO

 

All reviews are valid reviews, because they are all opinions.  But when his complaint is "its too linear", or "its a rail shooter" or "Its more of the same" I have to disagree.  Being linear in its self is not a bad thing. In fact there is a tendency for linear games to be less buggy, because there are a lot less coding needed. Also not everyone wants a huge sandbox world.  So to put a game down because it is "linear" just shows off the opinion of the reviewer.  This is why I have a problem with the number system, and people who just look at a number and get angry about it, or say they would have given it a different number.  His complaints about the character progression, and how you are supposed to be best friends with the other guy, but talk like you just met, those make more sense to me.  And your apparent underpoweredness of the suit during certain scenes to create tension, pulls you out of the story a bit.

 

And if you have to dig down to the bare mechanics of its still an fps where you run around and shoot people, and its too fast paced (ie twitch shooter), then you would be hard pressed to find an fps that doesn't fall into that exact same category.  It isn't more of the same, there are lots of difference, albeit not original differences, but who cares?

 

You cannot have a franchise that is both totally original and fresh every game.  Those two things are mutually exclusive.  A franchise by basic definition is more of the same, just with minor differences and additions.  It would be like going into a Mcdonalds and being surprised that they serve the same food as the one down the street.  There is a lot to be said for original IP's, and they have their place in this world, but a franchise should not be downplayed if it is still fun.  And I believe he used the word fun many times in his review.

[Light_Infinite_]

i find the game really great like all the cod .. well the portion of multiplayer of ghost that was the only thing i hated of the series 

[Ryumoau]

people still care about Angry Joe in 2014? :/

[Happy]

people still care about Angry Joe in 2014? :/

Considering he's one of the last reviewers who doesn't get money shoved up his ass by the big publishers i'd argue now there's more of a reason to care about Angry Joe than ever.

 

That being said, i don't see why he's reviewed this game to begin with. Everybody already knew exactly what he was going to criticise about the game because that's exactly what everybody criticises with every title in the franchise ever since Black Ops, perhaps even earlier. There is no point in reviewing Call Of Duty at this point, here let me review the next 3 games in the franchise so you won't have to:

 

Call Of Duty Modern Ops (2015)

-Campaign is linear, 5 hour-long explosionfest, if you like Call Of Duty, you'll like it.

-Story is cliché and predictable, if you like Call Of Duty you'll like it

-There's some minor new elements, but it's still Call Of Duty, if you like Call Of Duty, you'll like it

-Multiplayer is just as it was before, spawnpoints are crap, but hey, if you like Call Of Duty, you'll like it

 

Call Of Duty Terrorist Annihilator (2016)

-Campaign is linear, 5 hour-long explosionfest, if you like Call Of Duty, you'll like it.

-Story is cliché and predictable, if you like Call Of Duty you'll like it

-There's some minor new elements, but it's still Call Of Duty, if you like Call Of Duty, you'll like it

-Multiplayer is just as it was before, spawnpoints are crap, but hey, if you like Call Of Duty, you'll like it

 

Call Of Duty Very Advanced Warfare (2017)

-Campaign is linear, 5 hour-long explosionfest, if you like Call Of Duty, you'll like it.

-Story is cliché and predictable, if you like Call Of Duty you'll like it

-There's some minor new elements, but it's still Call Of Duty, if you like Call Of Duty, you'll like it

-Multiplayer is just as it was before, spawnpoints are crap, but hey, if you like Call Of Duty, you'll like it

 

He should've reviewed Shadow Of Mordor or something, nobody needs to watch a review for Call Of Duty.