PixlBit

Hopefully it's more of the same in a more interesting setting. There's nothing mechanically wrong with any of the CoD games. They aren't broke, they aren't boring, they aren't poorly made. They're well made, solid, the engines run near flawlessly for what they're trying to accomplish, the controls are responsive, and I always get what I expect. Nothing less, nothing more.

I don't care about the stories at all in these games so I'm not on the same boat as people who want to see it get really serious, intellectual, emotional, and become some kind of expose to teach kids the horrors or war, politics, and crap. That's not what these games are for and I'm not clamouring for them to transform into some entirely new franchise. The gameplay is what made CoD popular, not a story, so there shouldn't be a story shoved down your throat, especially if they just don't have a story they really want to tell. The story and setting for these games has always been extra curricular, it's always been built around the gameplay and serves 2nd to the gameplay which is the way it should be. The thing that seperates gaming from other mediums is interactivity, and if gameplay isn't your #1 priority than why are you making a video game? If gameplay isn't the core of the game than the interactivity is sacrificed and you'd be better off not bothering at all.

If I cared about story first I'd read a book lol. I'm playing CoD to get great gameplay and it's some of the best in the shooter market so there's nothing wrong with what they're doing. I assume with this game they will add some new features here and there just like any franchise like this does. There will be some new-ish guns, new set pieces, maybe some new mechanical features added to the movement or combat mechanics to add some small element to exploration and combat, etc. Other than that it should be very familiar, which is good. If I wanted to play something "different" or "new" that I haven't experience before I'd go play something else lol. It's simple. If you want CoD to be something other than what it is, than why are you playing and worrying about CoD? Go play Crysis 2, Halo 4, Portal 2, or Borderlands 2. If I was playing Ridge Racer and I wished it was more serious, realistic, and grounded, I'd go play Gran Turismo. CoD doesn't have to be the end all be all of shooters, and it doesn't have to do "everything". It's fun the way it is and games are about being fun, stories come second (If you even care to tell a story that is).

As long as Black Ops 2 is has fun levels to walk around in, AI that's fun to shoot in the face, guns that are nice to look at, fire, and listen to, and some shock & awe, it will be a pretty cool game to add to the series. Don't overthink it and try to turn this into poetry or an educational apparatus, it's not poetry and it's not meant to be educational. It's a simple, solid, war game.

Wonderfully said Mike, I agree not a lot needs to change with the series because honestly a lot of what they have already done is great and plays a large part of why the series has been so popular. (Though I may be a bit Call of Dutied Out, after playing every single one since COD 4).

Honestly my reason for writing this was more to address the media stir up where people were saying, “This call of duty is going to completely break the mold”. Because I just don’t think that’s true, nor do I think it’s possible unless the series abandons some of what has made it so great in the past.

And like you said I think a lot of the fans aren’t looking for all that much change. I will say this thought I do hope we see a change in the AI. This is the one aspect where I think Call of Duty lags behind other games, the fact that there are still continuous spawn points where enemies pour out from houses and buildings unabated into open fire really puts a damper on the gameplay for me. If they can do away with that and make the AI a bit more intuitive that would be great.  

I'm with you Mike. People cry out for innovation all the time and claim it's not there, but it's everywhere and people either don't notice or don't appreciate it. People would likely cry out for this to be incredibly different, and then if the game actually turned out to be very different you can already imagine enthusiasts writing articles about how it strayed too far and lost its fan base or enraged some vocal group. At the end of the day if this game doesn't have the Call of Duty name attached to it, people won't buy it the same way they'd buy it if it did have the name. People won't play it if it doesn't have that solid mechanical system they are accustomed to.

I'm not a story hater, I think stories are important to games that have one planned for their game, but I'm grounded enough and reasonable enough to know what I want and what to expect. I know why these games are designed the way they are and why they work. The first CoD game I played was MW2 right before MW3 came out (I was a late bloomer to the games) and about halfway through the campaign it all clicked in my brain. I look around at where cover is placed, how levels are set up, how encounter spaces are set up, how fast the characters move, the amount of ammo you have, the behavior of the AI, and it all made sense to me halfway through that first CoD experience I had. For years I avoided the games and hated them because I'm a Halo fanboy, but like I said, I eventually got around to playing MW2 and I figured it out pretty quick. I don't share the same design goals as their team does and I would prefer to design games more like Portal and Crysis, but I saw why CoD works and why it's a ton of fun.

I agree with your ideas for changing the AI. I would love to have a CoD that plays more like Halo or Crysis AI. In Halo and Crysis enemies have their own routines and patterns programmed into them and they won't know you exist until they see you or you compromise your stealth. I can sneak into areas in Halo or Crysis and enter a battle on my own terms most of the time. In CoD the AI is programmed to spawn and begin attacking you (and only you) the second you cross a boundry (a trigger box most likely) in an area. I've become pretty good at taking cover, popping up, and shooting enemies who are exposing their heads or shoulders as they're behind their own cover, but that gets pretty old. They definitely need more dynamic AI, like what RAGE did, or what Halo and Crysis do.

You know how every CoD has designated stealth levels, vehicle levels, and run-and-gun levels? They should stop designating entire levels to one playstyle and begin building their levels and AI to accommodate all those styles at once like how Halo and Crysis do. I think that would be a welcome change. It would slow the pace down (which Julian would be happy about) but most importantly it would offer variety and replayability (something designers pine for these days).

Some people might say that opening the levels, adding some architecture to sneak through, and allowing players the freedom to slow the pace would make it too different than that straight forward CoD style, but I honestly think it would be much better because it would give you a choice. In the CoD games I've played, they always have those arbitrary stealth levels and they always allow you to sneak up on a guy at some point and stab him in the face with a knife, right? That's a positive experience. It's a positive spike in a player's arousal levels and what I would do is allow the players the infrastructure and sandbox to let them engage that positive arousal response at their own will and choice.

Instead of letting stealth be some restricted or scripted one-off experience, it should be available at all times in an encounter space. Just as straight up gun-fights and cover based shooting should also be available at all times to players. It's been done before, and done well. It's a proven formula that can lead to great gameplay, and CoD should get in on it.