Exactly, very well put George.

Some people rage over mw2 because only the game is old. ..... but those people mod the server for lobby's now.

Georgasm wrote Made a topic with a similar argument before, what people fail to realize is that IW/Treyarch know what the players want, it isn't something different. If the millions of people who buy Ghosts hop into their first multiplayer game only to find it feels like Battlefield, they would hate it.

The main flaw I see with this is, you are seeing this in Black and White without a gray area.

You either look/feel like CoD or BF/Halo/Etc.
You can have a new ORIGINAL and innovative feel, while keeping the same core concepts.

For example, Fable 1, 2 and 3 are completely different but it still feels like Fable.
Halo still feels like Halo, GTA like GTA etc.

Call of Duty drains all of the money out of it's fans, while utilizing the less work possible.

Now I'm not blaming this on IW/3arc. But Activision, let's face it, they have a 2 year time frame on a game for each company, this is hardly enough time to innovate.

Either way, the recycling is noticeable.
The engine is the same since 2005~. It's been heavily recycled. They said a "whole" new engine for Ghosts. It isn't.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Bethesda used Gamebryo from 2002-2008 and created a whole new one for Skyrim and newer games.
Bethesda only released 3 games within that time period, while CoD released 7, soon to be 8, on the IW engine.

Balancing issues, bugs and exploits plague the multiplayer for months, half the time on issues that reoccur from previous titles, such as spawning. How do other games get these kinked out? Beta's. They allow thousands or even millions of people to play the game months/weeks in advance to ensure optimal experience on release. CoD allows people who can take a plane across the world/country and pay for a ticket to try the game.

Personally I feel like the game could and would be better if they actually went about this correctly.

A) Increase the time between games.
B) Merge the studios, have each studio focus on a section and have a 2/3 year release period. They could maybe even get away with a little over a year this way. This way, every section of the game is refined and focused. No more 4 hour on hardest difficulty campaigns, bugs could be ironed out more effectively and ideas could be thought of implemented quicker.

I have nothing against anyone wanted to spend 60$ on essentially the same game, it's your money. The fact that you said people don't want anything different is false by simply looking at the amount of people saying otherwise and how well MW2 did compared to CoD4. It was because the games actually changed, but had the same overall feeling.

It is a series which has been milked too far. When you look at long running series' such as GTA you see that the reason why they are so successful is because they make some changes, enhance their games and revolutionise the world of gaming. Where on the other hand Call of Duty had COD 4 which everyone loved because it was a good game(not great)and they have ridden that success for too long. MW2 was the last time you could call the games decent as after that the people with a bit of sense realised that there is nothing really that exciting added to keep us interested and that we are being fed a recycled game. The problem is that there is now a horrible base of Cod fan boys that have invaded the world to keep CoD from evaporating from the market. Now I know you made the point of saying it is pointless to change a games completely as it is stupid but look at it like this. Say you hear a joke which is really funny you laugh the first time, then you maybe smile the second time but eventually it has lost all effect and it needs changed.

Rune wrote Whenever I see someone bashing on Call of Duty for making a similar game every year, I want to lose it. The point of a video game series is for the video games in said series, to be pretty similar. Now, lets say that, for example, The Fast and the Furious series made the first movie about street racing, getting into fights, rescuing friends, ect. and then they made the second movie about hunting aliens and space travel. It would be completely stupid, and unexpected. No one would like it, assuming they liked the first movie. I really honestly don't see why people don't say the same thing about Madden, Fifa, NHL, Battlefield, and pretty much 100+ other video game series/franchises. Who in the world would buy a sequel to a game that was far from similar to the previous one? anyways, tell me what you think about this.

This has to be the best topic ever posted on here. EVER.

The amount of times i've heard people say about how CoD is 'always the same' makes me want to go on a rampage.

I'm glad someone has put up a great argument!

Plus they only have a year to make the next game.

Rune wrote Whenever I see someone bashing on Call of Duty for making a similar game every year, I want to lose it. The point of a video game series is for the video games in said series, to be pretty similar. Now, lets say that, for example, The Fast and the Furious series made the first movie about street racing, getting into fights, rescuing friends, ect. and then they made the second movie about hunting aliens and space travel. It would be completely stupid, and unexpected. No one would like it, assuming they liked the first movie. I really honestly don't see why people don't say the same thing about Madden, Fifa, NHL, Battlefield, and pretty much 100+ other video game series/franchises. Who in the world would buy a sequel to a game that was far from similar to the previous one? anyways, tell me what you think about this.

On a game like Madden only so much innovation can be made, but call of duty adds no to little improvement to ANY of their games. Why can battlefield/halo/gears of war innovate on their games?

people do say the same thing about sports games. Most of my friends have a 3 year rule on sports games. Battlefield 3 to Battlefield 4 lacks innovation and looks like a Battlefield 3 expansion pack. But previous battlefield games felt new and innovative. An example would be Bad Company 2 all the way to Battlefield 3. Or even Battlefield 1942 to Battlefield 2. The thing about Call of Duty is it has not just been similar but almost the exact same game. To be honest there is DLC in some games that add more changes to the game than the recent CoDs. To be honest I think we are about to see the release of Call of Duty 4.6. The real hardcore gamers want to see innovation in sequels and the hardcore gamers hate to see their favorite franchises milked year after year. They like the companies to take their time and make it right. Look at games like GTA 5 and Skyrim which took 5 years after GTA 4 and Oblivion. Some games like Starcraft 2 took 10 years to comeout. Now don't even get me started on the most anticipated future game...Half Life 3. All of these games took the same concept of their sequel but the actually felt like a new game. Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War, recent Battlefields, Assassins Creed feel the same year after year because they are milked.

Rune your reference to fast and furious reminds me of what happened from Saints Row 2 to Saints Row 3.

I've been playing Call of Duty since Cod:2 and seriously ever game is basically the same. Sure every year they add killstreaks, guns and perks but it's still the basic first person shooter. The only reason why I play Cod is for the story and the social interactions with other players other then that the game is repetitive.