You think COD takes skill to play? xD I was playing the old COD games ar like 6 or 7 and stood my ground even then, and now they are even easier.... I have played the latest ones due to my brother buying them and I didn't even have to aim in a match and still won a free for all game. The franchise is ruined because the games are getting easier and repetitive due to the target audience changing to 12 year old kids (to which the game is full of, RIP ears).
Fallout 4, you can build your village(s) , like in Minecraft hehe. Anyways time of playing Fallout 4 >>> BO3. Thats the reason. Unless you play multiplayer again and again and again .... the same.
It didn't I until AW, that's why 99% of the community hates it. My first COD was COD3 back when I was about 5 years old. Did no where near well but was decent compared to most people at that age. This is just me, but COD will always be my baby as it is the first FPS I ever played.
AW takes even less 'skill' than the rest, the exo suits give you a ridiculous escape mechanism and it's pathetic. I'm not even gonna argue with why that makes the game substantially easier. If you were 5 when COD 3 came out, you are obviously the target audience sooo my point stands the game is made for kids
Actually, Activision is thinking about changing when CoDs should be released. Instead of an every year thing, they're thinking about changing it to 3 years. Also, isn't the Black Ops series by Treyarch?
Actually, all CoDs (or the CoDs that I have played) take skill to play. I mean, quickscoping is not easy to learn, let me tell you that. And with the exo suits, you can do so much more stuff, so doesn't the exo suit make things more harder? I don't know, I stopped playing the CoD series at Ghosts and switched to Battlefield.
Its still published by Activision. Quickscoping isn't really a 'skill'. I mean, in CoD it might be, but in other FPS games you either can't quickscope or there's a whole different meaning to 'skill'. Compared to those games (Quake, DOOM, Wolfenstein *I think* come to mind), CoD is about as easy as it gets. P.S exo suits, from what I've seen of them, are just ripoffs of the titans from Titanfall. Titanfall = gr8 Advanced Warfare - not gr8
How can you compare the two? They're both different genres. CoD is FPS and Fallout is survival sandbox. How long did GTA V have in development? With an extremely large budget and huge workforce, the game wasn't overly brilliant. It was a big step for the GTA series, but things like multiplayer were just a failure.
I believe it already is on a 3 year cycle. Treyarch, Infinityward,and Sledgehammer Games. Black Ops and World at War are Treyarch. Modern Warfare and Ghosts are Infinityward. Advanced Warfare is Sledgehammer Ganes. Each year they alternate which studio has their game published by Activision. I get that I'm a cod fanboy but I'll be unbiased here. AW was released after Titanfall but was underdevelopment when Black Ops 2 came out. Developers from Sledgehammer left and made Titanfall and where able to release it early and basically copied the mechanics. Since AW came after, most believe it ripped off Titanfall but in fact it's the other way around. ****Activision is considering remastering old CODs****
You are following the wrong games bruh, BATTLEFIELD. I myself prefer bf3 due to nostalgia. 4 is basically an expansion of 3. Not really too much difference there. I don't know about hardline I haven't played it but it gets decent reviews. Fallout just makes no sense to me whatsoever and COD was ruined for me when I realized that pretty much all other FPS's that have more than one game in the series are more competitive. It's like the short bus of fps's.
I personally can't see how it's an argument either, and this is coming from someone who used to do nothing but play CoD. I started on Call of Duty 2 and I loved the single player - Call of Duty 4 was literally the greatest game in the franchise - nothing has come close to this point in my opinion. I grew up with Call of Duty, and up until AW, I bought them each year. But even I can tell you that Fallout 4 is by FAR the better game to get. Fallout is just on a whole different level from CoD, and no only by the gameplay standard. Call of Duty has been heavily focused on multiplayer, but it HAS been the same since number 4. Fallout 4 just easily takes the cake for me - if you only have the money for one, I truly suggest Fallout 4 - I'm still playing Fallout 3 and New Vegas with the mod support they include - I haven't touched a Call of Duty game in nearly 2 years. Add that in with the new ability to import mods from the computer to the consoles and you have the perfect recipe for years of entertainment.
Black Ops III = An FPS. Fallout 4 = An FPS/Third-Person Role Playing Game with survival sandbox mechanics. GTA V was in development from 2008 - late 2013, with developing continuing after development - which still hasn't stopped. GTA V was also a brilliant game. Multiplayer was bad, but meh, it usually is. Single player is where its (whatever 'its' is, lel) at, especially on the PC version where you can mod the hell out of it. I'd also like to point out there's more hours of content (Bethesda usually pack about 200+ hours of gameplay into a base game, and pump out an additional 50-100 hours in the form of three or four expansions released over the year after release) in Fallout and Elder Scrolls games than there is in GTA games And who is telling you they're developing it on three year cycles? The developers and publishers of the game? They're not fooling many people outside of the age range of 5 - 12 when they say that - CoD games are just the CoD game that came before it, but with a few reskinned maps and a new campaign that includes another several hundred quick time events. The team behind Titanfall, I believe, left Sledgehammer waaay before Advanced Warfare came out. Advanced Warfare definitely did not have 3 years of development on it. Even if what you said is true, Respawn still made a better game with Titanfall than Sledgehammer did with Advanced Warfare.
