u/sammyjamez

The only future-based COD (or at least it was futuristic at the time) that started this trend was Black Ops 2.

It showed a semi-futuristic setting with mostly fictional weapons and equipment but still familiar because it was still boots on the ground type of gameplay.

Then Advanced Warfare, Infinite Warfare, and the rest of the Black Ops games tested this even further by adding my movement mechanics to add another layer of strategy, but this led to mixed opinions.

On one hand, you have another layer of strategy for trying to master the movement system.

But on the other hand, the maps were small so there was not that much room. People hated having to look up and down because it required having to look around you and above you. And having a sense of verticality was also a risk because you would be exposing yourself in open air.

Perhaps that is the biggest reason why everyone really disliked the Infinite Warfare trailer when it released because the fans felt that this was not what COD meant to be which is why they want back to WW2 and go back to boots on the ground.

But let's say hypothetically. Let's say a near future setting or in the far future where the developers can experiment with a lot of things, what are certain things that will make the games work if the developers will experiment the futuristic setting again?

This is not just because I think that multi player games have a certain learning curve to them like Company of Heroes, Starcraft 2 and the Age of Empires games, but mostly it is because if I am playing as the commander or the ruler of a faction, I want to know why I am fighting for these people.

This is possibly coming from my early days of playing RTS games where there was basically single player missions and some were uniquely crafted to give you a specific objective, sometimes with specific units, and you have to use your wits and your knowledge about the game to beat the campaign.

Sometimes it is also because single player games do not involve that much pressure than multi player games and whilst playing, I would be learning a little more on how the game is designed or what are the advantages and disadvantages of each faction.

Starcraft and Warcraft are the best examples of this because they combine story with slow tutorials about each faction, and you have to progress based on what you know at that time and what they give you. Harder difficulties are mostly because the enemy have bigger army sizes and have more upgrades so you have to adapt with what you can or sometimes, just spam a particular unit which sometimes works

Or in Company of Heroes, whilst also learning the pros and cons of each faction, they take you in a roughly recreated version of a certain mission in WW2 and you can feel the energy of the war.

There is a reason why I have been playing these RTS games that are mostly based on single-player but with a twist like They Are Billions and Age of Darkness.

You learn through every skirmish you play, and sometimes, matches can go as long as you want, and the blend between the RTS part and the survival part is something that I admit that I kind of like.

Each skirmish mode is mostly in a roughly generated map so no mission is the same and you have to adapt based on what you have and what you think you know where the enemy is coming from which is sometimes during particular timed events where you have huge swarms of enemies, or when they randomly start to attack you and you have to be absolutely sure that every part of your base is well defended because it can easily be overrun if you have one weakness

I actually do like it when single player games what replayability like the Total War games (I own some of them but I have not tried them yet) or in Company of Heroes 2, there is a DLC addition to the American campaign which is roughly RPG based and turn based. Every section of the map you conquer, the enemy will retreat and regroup in other parts so the AI is kind of reacting to your achievements and the places where they retreated become harder so you really have to use your wits to actually finish the entire campaign (plus you can only reinforce your troops till a certain amount so you have to be sure that you make every unit count and not lose too much because you have too few, you are going to be in a serious disadvantage).

I think that not every RTS game seriously needs a very good multiplayer mode, especially if the developers are trying to make it competitive which requires a lot of resources.

If the single player is fun but also has elements that are replayable like randomly generated maps or adaptive AI, then I am happy

The first thing that comes to mind is these maps are very small and knowing that player will automicallg use the sprint and even slide buttons to go from A to B and try to get kills in creative ways, the experience in this maps are most chaotic.

You sometimes find corners to get kills from all of the other directions, but no corner is technically a good spot because there are barely any cover to hide behind and heal up once you take damage.

Again, most of the matches involve a lot of people coming from all directions and you have to be extra careful that you do not get caught in the crossfire and not be another victim of another person's quick kill.

I know that these are well beloved, and people play on these maps all the time. But strategically speaking, if someone tries to be attentive or use cover or try to flank, there are very few opportunities to do these things and most optimal strategy that you can use is run around the map, get as much as kills as much until you randomly die by another person who using the same thing.

Please, I am not trying to hate on these maps.

I am just trying to understand the design philosophy and how they can be used to take advantage of the players' strategies

We often say that the COD franchise is mostly the same with every entry, and that is mostly true.

But there have been attempts to make each entry, or at least each sub-franchise different.

Like the first Black Ops had the COD points and the wager matches. Ghosts had a perk system that did not limit you to three perks. Black Ops 2 had a pick-10 system. Advanced Warfare had exosuits and jetpacks. Black Ops 3 had classes and heroes. Most of the futuristic COD games had these strange weapons.

So, technically speaking, they often tried something different, and there is bound to be a certain demographic that liked these things.

For now, we are not sure what the next COD game is going to be, but there is a strong chance that it will be MW4.

But if a future game will be based on any setting or it is planned to have any system within it, at least in multi-player, is there a certain system or mechanic that maybe the developers can return to or upgrade?

Something that I once read online is that though video games are so expensive to make nowadays, especially ones with already established IPs and ones where the games try to be bigger, more detailed and more numerous like in AAA industries, the price of the video games roughly stayed the same.

And if you think about it, it sort of makes sense why companies, especially if either the game is free, or the game was so expensive to make, that the companies add all of these anti-consumer mechanics which everyone hates. Especially if these keep being enforced all the time with all the ads, the marketing behind the inclusion of more stuff that you have to pay for, or certain games being deliberately harder to play or forcing you to grind which ultimately forces the player to try to pay for these 'cheats' to save time.

This does not mean that every video game is utilising these controversial mechanics in their games, especially if the games are popular or massive.

Like the Witcher franchise has expansion packs that you can pay for but no microtransactions or battle passes.

More games, mostly indie games, that are still popular and are being updated, like Stardew Valley, most of the updates are free and it was not long after that multiplayer mode was added which was also free.

The game No Man's Sky is technically fully free for all of its updates, and it still gets more updates

The possible reasoning why certain games have this controversial practice is because of the philosophy behind game development like Activision Blizzard, EA, and Ubisoft.

These companies are now becoming well known that they have a philosophy that if they can make more money, even if the mechanics do not make sense or will cause controversy, they will add them.

But knowing that video games are very expensive these days, and knowing that companies will need to get their money back while also making profit in order to continue to make more games (putting aside what the corporate people think about gaming being a business to make more money through these controversial practices),,then can gaming companies still make as much money as they can without the inclusion of these controversial mechanics?

How can they by pass these traps and still be able to attract enough people to buy their games and even earn more than needed?

The city builder game that I play the most is Caesar 3 and sometimes Sim City 4.

But I remember that the RTS games that really made me admire the layout and building designs are the Age of Empires series, especially when you literally see the buildings 'upgrade' when you advsnce to a new age or see the difference in the buildings' designs between the different civilisations/races.

The thing that actually made me be attracted to Caesar 3 and even the older Age of Empires gamea (including the Age of Empirrs 2 DE which is still popular) is the old pixel design, where even though there was limited hardware, the designs were carefully crafted to appear unique.

In most playthroughs, I tend to neglect exactly where to place the buildings because the ones that I need to place them depends on where they are needed the most like houses farms, the markets, the barracks, the castles and so on.

Some multiplayer games neglect the necessity of a perfectly designed city because you need to place buildings to use them as walls or make them in close proximity to your enemy for proxies or cheese tactics.

So the building layout starts to look like a mess, and this makes me feel a bit uneasy.

But when I sometimes feel like the layout makes sense, (especially when when the single player games where you load into a pre-designed layout where most of the buildings are already built and you see other things added in like the roads and so on) I do not know why, I feel this certain sensation of comfort whenever I look at the positioning of the building and who they are designed individually and combined with how they look alongside other buildings and they make me feel like I am putting the puzzle pieces just at the right place and it almost like a perfectly pieced together painting where everywhere fits and I feel like I am a pro designer.

Again, most skirmishes or single-player missions (but mostly multi player) force me to adapt and place the buildings where they make sense the most.

But when I manage to have just the right layout, I feel this sense of comfort when the layout feels just right and I feel more at peace, so to speak

The city builder game that I play the most is Caesar 3 and sometimes Sim City 4.

But I remember that the RTS games that really made me admire the layout and building designs are the Age of Empires series, especially when you literally see the buildings 'upgrade' when you advsnce to a new age or see the difference in the buildings' designs between the different civilisations/races.

The thing that actually made me be attracted to Caesar 3 and even the older Age of Empires gamea (including the Age of Empirrs 2 DE which is still popular) is the old pixel design, where even though there was limited hardware, the designs were carefully crafted to appear unique.

In most playthroughs, I tend to neglect exactly where to place the buildings because the ones that I need to place them depends on where they are needed the most like houses, prefect buildings, engineer's buildings, farms, the markets, the aqueducts and so on.

Some multiplayer games neglect the necessity of a perfectly designed city because you need to place buildings to use them as walls or make them in close proximity to your enemy for proxies or cheese tactics.

So the building layout starts to look like a mess, and this makes me feel a bit uneasy.

But when I sometimes feel like the layout makes sense, (especially when when the single player games where you load into a pre-designed layout where most of the buildings are already built and you see other things added in like the roads and so on) I do not know why, I feel this certain sensation of comfort whenever I look at the positioning of the building and who they are designed individually and combined with how they look alongside other buildings and they make me feel like I am putting the puzzle pieces just at the right place and it almost like a perfectly pieced together painting where everywhere fits and I feel like I am a pro designer.

Again, most skirmishes or single-player missions (but mostly multi player) force me to adapt and place the buildings where they make sense the most.

But when I manage to have just the right layout, I feel this sense of comfort when the layout feels just right and I feel more at peace, so to speak

This is a weird phase for RTS games because there are a few of them that have been developed in certain years but these are just the very few that managed to gain a following like Terminator: Dark Fate, They Are Billions, Age of Darkness and the recent Age of Mythology remake.

When it comes to popularity and even multiplayer and competitions, it is usually the classics and the tried and tested that keep being played and these are the ones that keep being updated or gain more content like Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 3 or the Age of Empire games or the Command and Conquer games or Age of Annihilation or Dawn of War

There were some games that tried to make the RTS more popular, like Grey Goo or Dawn of War 3 or others, that I admit that they were so meh that I forgot their names.

But this raises a good question- Why is the RTS genre so difficult to make and be popular again, especially when it had such a good popularity earlier on, like in the late 1990s and the 2000s?

How come only a select few keep being played while newer RTS games will find it hard to get a good following?

This is mostly a multiplayer related scenario.

It is mostly to ask to inquire how you have been taught how to face toxicity (hopefully in a healthy manner) so that it does not disturb your gaming quality

Toxicity like

rage quitters or players who rage a lot,

griefers,

campers,

players who use the same tactics,

players who talk garbage,

players who team kill,

players who refuse to cooperate or communicate,

players who use the chat to talk garbage or troll,

players who steal other players' progress or points,

players who make fun of other players,

players who genuinely look like they are having fun making fun of others

,,,, etc

It is a bit odd to ask this question because every COD game is different as they have their own mechanics, and the strategies and metas change through updates and patches.

Though most of the COD games are roughly the same - you can sprint, you aim down the sights when you see the enemy, mostly hope that you shoot first and hit and keep going.

There are some tiny strategies like holding a certain position on the map or even camping or making use of your perks or equipment to your advantage to reload quickly or get more ammo quickly and stay engaged.

I know that there is the SBMM issue that either tightens or expands the skill curve gap, which is the most controversial mechanic.

But if we have to think about it, does COD really have a skill curve aside from fast movement, fast reflexes, shooting first, and aiming accurately and keep moving?

I am mostly talking about any of the RTS games in general since I mostly do not have that much of a preference. Although I know that AOE2 DE and AOE4, Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3 are very popular and sometimes have competitions.

Sometimes, I play the lesser known RTS games, which I think the multi player is not that popular, like the Command and Conquer and Red Alert series (but I am not sure)

To give you some context, I have been an RTS lover for a very long time, and there are plenty of different RTS games that I love to play or follow online.

However, I mostly tend to go towards the single player because the multi player can be daunting, especially when there are multiple civilisations/races and different metas.

I could learn some how-to videos and watch some matches, but that is the only thing that I can think of.

I know that I will need to practice, but I know that I will end up making a fool of myself, which will later affect my rank in the multi player ladder, which may take forever to get out of

I am mostly talking about any of the AOE games in general since I mostly do not have that much of a preference. Although I know that AOE2 DE and AOE4 are very popular and sometimes have competitions.

To give you some context, I have been an RTS lover for a very long time, and AOE is one of them.

However, I mostly tend to go towards the single player because the multi player can be daunting, especially when there are multiple civilisations and different metas.

I could learn some how-to videos and watch some matches, but that is the only thing that I can think of.

I know that I will need to practice, but I know that I will end up making a fool of myself, which will later affect my rank in the multi player ladder, which may take forever to get out of

Let me make this clear first-

Yes, I do agree with debating about the nitpicks of what a video game should be like because not only it gives feedback to the developers (unless it is toxic feedback), but it can also be an aspect of passion about one's desires and needs and how can a video game work well.

It is a central part of any type of medium to debate because video games are both art and products and like every product, there are going to be mechanics or business practices that people have mixed feelings about and we already know that most of the mechanics in most video games are not in favour of the consumers

So yes, I agree that debate is necessary.

But ... and this is where I go in a different direction.

What if we have been debating so much, going into every nitty-gritty, picking apart every detail, sometimes even yell and scream at the developers if things are not in our favour, when deep down, video games are meant to be fun?

Unless the game is very poorly made with glitches and poor narrative and so on, why should we judge people for liking a video game when others would berate them with comments that they should not feel satisfied with the games?

So what if someone likes COD: Vanguard or COD WW2 or the Black Ops 7?

Or Battlefield 2042 or Overwatch or Warcraft 3 Reforged or whatever

Let them. They have their tastes, and nobody is harming them.

So what if the games were not well received? Maybe in their eyes, they enjoyed it, even if they had pretty bad mechanics or poor story

I can not say why they would like them, but I am not going to judge them either.

If they like the games, let them. They are having fun.

If not, they can choose something else

Simple as that

Let me make this clear first-

Yes, I do agree with debating about the nitpicks of what a video game should be like because not only it gives feedback to the developers (unless it is toxic feedback), but it can also be an aspect of passion about one's desires and needs and how can a video game work well.

It is a central part of any type of medium to debate because video games are both art and products and like every product, there are going to be mechanics or business practices that people have mixed feelings about and we already know that most of the mechanics in most video games are not in favour of the consumers

So yes, I agree that debate is necessary.

But ... and this is where I go in a different direction.

What if we have been debating so much, going into every nitty-gritty, picking apart every detail, sometimes even yell and scream at the developers if things are not in our favour, when deep down, video games are meant to be fun?

Unless the game is very poorly made with glitches and poor narrative and so on, why should we judge people for liking a video game when others would berate them with comments that they should not feel satisfied with the games?

So what if someone likes COD: Vanguard or COD WW2 or the latest video game? Let them. They have their tastes, and nobody is harming them.

So what if the games were not well received? Maybe in their eyes, they enjoyed it, even if they had pretty bad mechanics or poor story

I can not say why they would like them, but I am not going to judge them either.

If they like the games, let them. They are having fun.

If not, they can choose something else

Simple as that

This reminds me of the three age system that tends to be often used in archaeology like the stone age, bronze and iron age; or antiquity, Medieval ages and the Renaissance - which gives a sense feeling that advancement is linear and slowly progresses more and more.

But I remember when we were taught pre-history and how the Homo sapiens species eventually became one of the many different sub-species of hominids, alongside that hominins like chimpanzees and bonobos managed to survive and thrive for millions of years.

Additionally, in pre-history, we were taught about the different hypotheses of where the Homo sapiens species came from and where did it go (like there are lots of fossils in Africa and they can trace back ancestors of the Homo sapiens species but the Out-of-Africa hypothesis is still debates)

And even the fact that in the neolithic era, we figured that this was where agriculture started to appear, esepcially in the Fertile Crescent but we were taught that agriculture is a very heavy and taxing labour and there are plenty of disadvantages to rely on agriculture to survive like disease and climate change.

And this stuck to me because when we define history, it is almost like a linear path where one hegemon either advances or is replaced by another, or perhaps multiple civilisations at once, and as time goes on, when technology and philosophy improves, so do all of the civilisations at the time

But I remember many years ago before I studied studying archaeology, I used to be told that this was the case when western Rome fell because it was considered as an advanced civilisation because of its politics and rich economy (even a lot of the emperors ruled for very short periods and were assassinated) and I was told that the Medieval Ages was a step back in terms of civilisation.

But I eventually that this was not the case and this was a biased view towards the classical civilisations during the Reinassance and the Enlightenment period since the Medieval Ages advanced in some ways like theological philosophy, scripture by scribes and monks, the windmill, the trebuchet, the use of cavalry in battle tactics and a full plate armour

So technically speaking, civilisation did improve but perhaps not at the same rate with every single civilisation during that period.

Which still begs the question of what we are told in history books makes sense that history and civilisation is a linear progression, or at least it is a different rate of progression for different civilisations at once?