Xbox One Ghosts now stealing from bf4?

stiflex

New Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Messages
83
Karma
0
From
Vilnius
As the title says, I've noticed that some changes in the so called "new engine" and improvements to the multiplayer steal from battlefield 4's levolution idea.

On the multiplayer trailer they said that if you blow up something, it'll change the tide of the game. We'll - that's exactly what bf4 is doing, but doing it on a bigger scale, and making it map-wide, not just a single gas station.

What do you guys think?
 
Honestly? I can't say that anyone is stealing from anyone else. I'm not on the dev team and so I don't know what is slated and what has been added. I also have to make that point that games and such tend to grow more similar rather than less as market forces act on them. So it may well be that they've caught onto BF4's coat-tails, but it is at least as likely that they are just following market research. So yeah.
 
bf4 is levelution.. i cant say for sure but seems like the tower is a hold point if its a building or rubble. the multiplayer aspect of bf4 seems to be based around overtaking specific locations on the map or protecting them.. if you watch a few trailers you will see 3 flags marked.. the levelution changes the dynamic but they are not showing it as if you are near the building when it falls you die. (assuming u will if you are in it and dont parachute out) or are directly under it when it falls.

in the cod level damage is used to change how the map is played. the stop on the logs being broken to release the longs when people are comming. the gas station explosion to kill or create cover. but it dosnt seem like cod is useing them as part of the multiplay process like bf4 is. i like the idea of a bomb to create a shooting window but thats not something i look forward to.
s
this is next gen. things have to get more streamline and feel real. the bf4 levelution makes sense your takng out the pillers on a building to bring it down. it does alter the map to a degree but their is a point to it.. where cod seems to have put things in for fun but didnt incoperate them... now they mention about a map where you blow up a bomb and it changes the level completely which makes sense but why not incorp 15 ways of doing it that are small bu serve a purpose not just for kills.
 
I don't think stealing is the appropriate word because then what does that mean? Nobody can do levolution because Battlefield did it first?

I think it's smart to adopt and/or tweak existing mechanics. As a developing team you want to make the best possible game so you look at things that others are doing right or what your players would like to see. COD is smart to add dynamic maps, dual rendering scopes, lean system, slide evasion, female multiplayer characters, and smooth mantling (all already existing in other games). It's just the next step for them especially since the game for many has gotten stale ever since Black Ops 1.

Besides this is hardly an issue of originality because everyone "steals" from everyone anyhow.
 
Seriously, don't even compare BF to COD series just because it sells more. COD s not worth the comparison. What are they doing with these annual iterations? They're ripping gamer off.
 
lets see cod do this...
[video=youtube;cgD8JATkGWk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgD8JATkGWk[/video]
 
I'm with you on this. It's only smart to adopt to what all of the top contenders are doing. Simple act of adapt and survive. Though
I think it's still somewhat too early to tell just yet. But it seems to me that all of the modern games these days are stealing from
one another in more ways then one.
 
its a war/tactical fps based around general military activity.. the actual window is small on how off the wall they can get.. we still have to keep that in perspective. levolution was bound to happen.

multiple aspects of ground,air,sea warfare were going to incorperated at some point. it is the evolution of the war,fps. it opens up navy,army,airforce,coast guard and appeals to more than just a run and gun shooter. the size of the levels were/are going to get bigger... well they have to. with how bf4 is laying out the mutiple point overtake/hold the levels need to be bigger than current. i would say cod could still run similar sizes since they are not doing as much with levolution..

cod is also not useing levolution/map altering as a take over/capture the flag style of playing. the general playing apect still seems to be run and gun. now their is a mode where it is capture the flag and a bomb placement iirc. but for the most part the multiplayer cod is still showing run and gun. i have yet to see cod show a sniper based video where the ranger class is holding a position and takes out an enemy from affar.

things like pereferial scope vision is nice with cod but i would give that up for sniping a jetskir rider from a tower tweeking my scope to get the range set right for the shot.

its hard to touch on the commander aspect of bf4 vs anything cod at this point. or the use of tanks,airplanes,vehicles,boats,jetskies.
 
I don't think stealing is the appropriate word because then what does that mean? Nobody can do levolution because Battlefield did it first?

I think it's smart to adopt and/or tweak existing mechanics. As a developing team you want to make the best possible game so you look at things that others are doing right or what your players would like to see. COD is smart to add dynamic maps, dual rendering scopes, lean system, slide evasion, female multiplayer characters, and smooth mantling (all already existing in other games). It's just the next step for them especially since the game for many has gotten stale ever since Black Ops 1.

Besides this is hardly an issue of originality because everyone "steals" from everyone anyhow.

Exactly. People want COD to be better and different, but the instance it makes the attempt they are called thieves or something. It just seems really odd - if BF4 were not coming out for a while or was coming out much later would people say the same?
 
They're similar, sure, but they always have been. This has always been a trend, adapt to survive. BF4 tweaked their single player to have more cinematic moments and how many FPS have imitated CoD's ranking system, perks, and kill streaks?
 
They're similar, sure, but they always have been. This has always been a trend, adapt to survive. BF4 tweaked their single player to have more cinematic moments and how many FPS have imitated CoD's ranking system, perks, and kill streaks?

Exactly. I find it interesting that so many people have such strong feelings about Call of Duty when they've practically invented the modern FPS style.
 
Exactly. I find it interesting that so many people have such strong feelings about Call of Duty when they've practically invented the modern FPS style.

its just how the fps works. you cant give the guy with no kills or not contributing to get air support,a guardian ect ect. same goes for a ranking system.. the game is soley based around killing.. so the ranking system works the same way. cod,bf4,titanfall are all going to have simlar structure as far as that goes.

i wont deny cod started the war style fps but they feel asleep at the wheel the last 2. and it shows in ghost imo. bf4 was trying to develop something more tactical and they are. they have added quite a few things that in all honesty cod should have done with all the support/sales and already been on to the next thing. cod has a great following and the cod elite was almost necessity they do a great job of providing but dont focus on furthering the game development. thats where cod gets its black cloud...
 
its just how the fps works. you cant give the guy with no kills or not contributing to get air support,a guardian ect ect. same goes for a ranking system.. the game is soley based around killing.. so the ranking system works the same way. cod,bf4,titanfall are all going to have simlar structure as far as that goes.

i wont deny cod started the war style fps but they feel asleep at the wheel the last 2. and it shows in ghost imo. bf4 was trying to develop something more tactical and they are. they have added quite a few things that in all honesty cod should have done with all the support/sales and already been on to the next thing. cod has a great following and the cod elite was almost necessity they do a great job of providing but dont focus on furthering the game development. thats where cod gets its black cloud...

That's what I don't quite get. What exactly can COD change to make it different that doesn't alter its feel?

BF can add vehicles, weather effects and tactical warfare because it caters to their large maps and military style. COD is a run and gun, arcade shooter. If you're asking them to add any of those three things then your asking them to be something that they're not. The "rehash" argument is even lacking considering that MW3 was the only genuine rehash in the series.

I think no matter what at this point people are going to have negative things to say regardless. I think people are tired of the FPS titan and want a new IP. It's OK to want COD to retire and a new IP to be born but you can't really call COD out for being COD. For some if it looks and feels like COD then they're automatically not interested (which is fine, anyone can think whatever they want).
 
It would be like saying Forza is stealing from Gran Turismo. They are both the top sold games of their genres, both competing between each other, even if it isn't that clear to a lot of people. But is that saying that they are stealing from each other? Because i don't think so, they are just going to evolve as naturally where they can.
 
To be honesty, so what if they do steal from BF4? What company doesn't steal ideas from their competitors. I can almost guarantee that every game each of us plays has stolen from other games to make them what they are. If an idea works, why shouldn't other companies run with it?
 
Exactly. I find it interesting that so many people have such strong feelings about Call of Duty when they've practically invented the modern FPS style.

I think that comes down to the trope of: It's old now it sucks. It doesn't matter if C.O.D. is the Granddaddy of FPS, because there are new IPs and that makes them more worthy or something. Personally I don't have an issue with C.O.D. because when they do well, they do very well and more often then not they aren't messing up. Their set pieces are great, the multiplayer is entertaining, it is what it says on the package... I mean it just isn't "wow" with weird buzzwords like leuvolution or whatever. It just isn't sparkly enough... which is hilarious because I have yet to see either of these drop so that a real comparison can be done. That said I'm picking up Ghosts and my buddy is getting BF4 and once we've had time to play them both I'll do a very special review for them. Should be interesting.
 
Even BF3 was inspired by Modern Warfare series and tried bringing in more cinematic sequences in the single player element. I guess no one noticed that and Battlefield fans would hardly accept the fact. But, almost every FPS is inspired by COD franchise in recent times. Let's see what BF4 got to offer this time around and I'm sure they are trying to become popular in the single player arena as well, not just multiplayer modes.
 
Even BF3 was inspired by Modern Warfare series and tried bringing in more cinematic sequences in the single player element. I guess no one noticed that and Battlefield fans would hardly accept the fact. But, almost every FPS is inspired by COD franchise in recent times. Let's see what BF4 got to offer this time around and I'm sure they are trying to become popular in the single player arena as well, not just multiplayer modes.

Yes, BF 3 was somewhat inspired by Modern Warfare 3, but that's why it was outright bashed by their core fanbase.
 
This is really interesting. There must be something psychological regarding why Call of Duty is so negatively thought of by many. I've heard journalists at IGN and Gametrailers claim that COD players aren't "real" gamers. I've also been on several forums and sites where people claim that CODs overwhelmingly positive sales stats don't matter (which makes no sense btw). I've also heard that COD doesn't do anything new thus they simply monetize gamers dry. All untrue.

It's odd. I'm not sure when it became not cool to openly like COD but when it happened it created this entire fad of bashing and overly critical analysis of the game.


I have a theory.
I think that since COD has been coming out yearly since 2007 that the skill level involved in COD has created a barrier in the gaming community. It's much easier to say COD sucks than to say that COD has become too challenging. This IS evident in the fact that I've found that after taking a month off from playing COD that I literally couldn't go positive when I finally returned. This fact combined with quickscoping, dropshotting, spawn trapping, and high, overwhelming killstreaks (all of which require a level of "try hard") makes COD an unattractive game to those that just aren't invested enough.

I think I've cracked it.
Thoughts?
 
Back
Top