Community: Message List - CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 03 May 2012 02:07:31 GMT

By trialstars logic, ARMA 2,,CoD and Fallout:New Vegas play the same, despite one being a milsim, one being an arcade shooter and one being an FPSRPG. I can go even more abstract than you TSD, ALL games are the same because you play a character! You can control said character(s)! Now all games are the same!

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 03 May 2012 00:33:40 GMT

Dear lord...Are you actually retarded?

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 03 May 2012 00:16:27 GMT

As for things like the mechs or bigger maps, fine by me. Treyarch is not going to make a small AT-AT (That armor's too strong for blasters!) ruin everyones fun, but I don't think it will be that much of a problem, either.

As for the larger maps, (when you were talking about the mechs) I could almost imagine a playlist where it's a giant 6 v 6 mech only battle. That would be fun.

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Thu, 03 May 2012 00:11:18 GMT

I'm fine with the change. I would like to see what could be done by Treyarch.

And I am looking forward to the campaign for the first time, since the outcome is actually affected by your actions, like when you die you don't restart at a checkpoint but rather the story evolves from that point. And the missions are supposed to be more sandboxy and less linear.

As for multiplayer, again I'm actually pretty sure they'll do just fine too.

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:34:41 GMT

I can agreee with you on what you said here Kastro.

OMG it happened, I agreed with you... the world is coming to an end. Quick everyone jump ship and get off the planet soon!

My point was never to make the game sound like it will be bad, it may be a great thing actually, I was merely pointing out how the game had similar looks to other games and how that may effect what people think about it.

And yes I will agree that the devs know more than either one of us and hopefully they did do a good job with what they are trying to do. Only release date will tell that answer to that though.

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:33:46 GMT

Yes true lets just wait and see.

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:30:41 GMT

I am not saying it will be bad, that is the problem here I thin. I am just stating on how it looks in comparison to other games. Will it be good or bad, no one will know until it is released. That is not what I am commenting on. Just the looks of the graphics.

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:29:20 GMT

trialstardragon wrote:

Just because something potentially may happen does not mean it will happen. Potentially the world could end in the next 2 mintues from the sun going super nova because of a rogue asteroid of dark matter colliding with it. Lets wait and see if that happens? Bet we still will be here.

Actually, our sun won't go Super Nova, it lacks the mass necessary to do so. What will happen is once our Sun exhausts it's fuel, it's mass will decrease to the point where the "outer core" breaks free, making the sun essentially "Expand" to the point where it may engulf the earth, and then eventually shrink back down to a much smaller size, causing our planet to freeze should it still be around. A Rogue Asteroid won't cause that.

However, the rest of what you stated is exactly why this game came about. Because it could POTENTIALLY happen. Our technological advancement could reach the point where we are doing these kinds of things.

I think if there's one thing we can agree on, it's that Treyarch probably have people who know a hell of a lot more than the two of us when it comes to this area. I really don't think they just pulled this out of their ass and then said "I hope nobody catches on!".

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:24:44 GMT

Dude I thought this game is going to be a EPIC FAIL my self. but I thought about the 8 player zombies and the MP why not Give it a go because it might aswell be good?

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:23:28 GMT

Might as well go the route of the ED-209 unit then and not even need a 4 legged tank. ED-209 would be even more mobile than any four legged tank and could fit in even smaller confined areas and carry enough firepower to do the job of those elcor.

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:21:03 GMT

I know how much things have grown and changed over time. I been here through it all, since when computers first came about basically to what they are now, and it has no where been nearly as fast a growth as that theory states. There has been several lull periods were very little changed during that time. What I am saying is what that theory tries to claim is unrealistic at its most basic format.

Going by that theory we should have computers running at 8GHz or higher by now, yet we do not, and no multicore computers do not count because that is not total speed, each core can only still do what it can. Going by that theory all home computes sold today or by next year should come with 1+ terrabyte hard drives and blue ray dvd drives, yet that will not be the case. Some may offer those, but not all will have them.

Just because something potentially may happen does not mean it will happen. Potentially the world could end in the next 2 mintues from the sun going super nova because of a rogue asteroid of dark matter colliding with it. Lets wait and see if that happens? Bet we still will be here.

Just because a theory states that something may happen does not prove it to be 100% true and accurate.

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:11:19 GMT

Yeah, agreed, but that is why I also read the first line of seeing who the post was in reply too. Its the only way to keep organized at the moment as toward who is talking to who about what. I dun do quotes much because, they tend to make the posts longer than need be at times. I just reply directly to the person by clicking the reply link under their post.

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 11:08:15 GMT

The counter argument will probably be along the lines that a walking tank can get over things that a track tank can not; such as unlevel debris fields that a normal tank could not navigate through or around.

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 10:59:20 GMT

Rednecksniper39 wrote:

It is illogical to have a tank that walks instead of one that is on tracks or wheels. Why? Walking is slow and cumbersome. The reason why the Abrams tank has been so effect is because it hits hard and can do it fast. Why would someone take a step back in that case? It is like saying we are going to have planes in the future that have wings that flap instead of using turbines

Maybe we should wait and see what potential advantages there are to having the walking mech. Treaded Tracks are only going to be so useful. Tanks are large and bulky, which is a disadvantage. Those "Walking Tanks" as you called them, could be smaller, which means they can be deployed in tighter spaces, aswell as be deployed quicker. If you can deploy 2-3 of them and have each of them do their own things, especially in a populated area, that can prove to be far more effective than having an Abrams tank roaming around.

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 10:55:57 GMT

trialstardragon wrote:

There is no proof that the theory stated there is true. Infact if you look at todays world we are not nearly as advannced as that theory states we should be. As stated before according to that theory we shoudl allready have hover cars, manned flights to other planets, and many other things by now compared to where we were when we started out.

Realistically, those things are already possible. It's just a matter of practicality right now. For instance, we have JETS that hover like a helicopter, and then transition into flight like a normal jet. In terms of manned flights to other planets, the reason we don't is far more centered around politics than technological advancement.

Tech does not boom and grow at an exponetial rate, not nearly as fast as that theory tries to claim. It has not been proven to be true.

We will be no where near the growth level of tech that that theory suggests by the year mentioned in it.

Its actually incorrect in one of its assumptions computers have not doubled in speed every year as it suggests. That shows the theory is flawed and not 100% accurate.

And what are you basing these claims on? History shows us how the technological growth has jumped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2011.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hard_drive_capacity_over_time.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg

I could go on here, but I doubt even you can argue against that. It's clear as day how accelerated the growth has become. If I were you, I'd research something known as "The Singularity".

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 10:55:25 GMT

trialstardragon wrote:

Ahh, now I see what you mean, how it takes until a certain number of posts have been made before paging it out. I misunderstood your first comment on that. I agree that it is strange in how or why it does that. It seems to wait until 4 pages worth of posts are accumlated before paging it for some reason. I am suprrised they did not set a hard limit of number of posts per page so after that limit is met a new page is started at that point.

Yeah I mean if you don't quote people every time you post and then it becomes a huge multi page discussion, it turns into a muddled up mess if your like me and actually try to read through and catch up with everything. Unless it's like 500 pages of course. Wish they would fix that. Just leave it like it is right now all of the time.

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 10:54:52 GMT

Yeah, I know, quite similar in looks but for some reason people feel the need to defend that it will be nothing like Halo. Its quite funny really, that people have this deep of a desire to make sure CoD is not referred to as looking Haloish for some silly reason.

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 10:52:28 GMT

It is illogical to have a tank that walks instead of one that is on tracks or wheels. Why? Walking is slow and cumbersome. The reason why the Abrams tank has been so effect is because it hits hard and can do it fast. Why would someone take a step back in that case? It is like saying we are going to have planes in the future that have wings that flap instead of using turbines

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 10:43:42 GMT

So what's your point??

Crysis was set in 2020

Crysis 2 was set 2023

Homefront was set around 2025

Hell, even COD 4 was set in 2011 & MW2/MW3 set in 2016

Did you go on each gaming forum site and state that "enter game title here" meets Halo meets Starcraft?"

Is every game set in the future a Halo shooter? (as this is what you're implying) since BLOPS 2 is set in the near future.

Just because there are Mechs, is it a Halo shooter?

The Mech's could just be a single player exclusive as not everything carries onto the multiplayer.

All you can argue that its not if you want but really it is. The BO stats and Elite is similar to Halo's stat page, the new look of the armor and the weapons is getting closer to the look of Halo pre spartans.

Maybe YOU shouldn't invest into COD and buy Halo 4 instead?

The weapons I saw on the trailer were prototypes & current military weaponry. Nowhere as advanced as what you see in Halo. I didn't see any laser weapons as well.

I can see the future right now. All the nerf this weapon threads, nerf this mech, buff this weapon, fix this spawn, take away that death streak/perk/armor ability that gives them unlimited health when they respawn.

Um....it's been that way for a while now. Time to get used to it.

Final point, this game looks no where as near as Halo. I don't know why you're making comparisons to it. (unless you're like some people who believe a game set in the future is a "Halo" game)

Re: CoD meets Halo meets StarCraft

donotreply@activision.com — Wed, 02 May 2012 10:50:45 GMT

Ahh, now I see what you mean, how it takes until a certain number of posts have been made before paging it out. I misunderstood your first comment on that. I agree that it is strange in how or why it does that. It seems to wait until 4 pages worth of posts are accumlated before paging it for some reason. I am suprrised they did not set a hard limit of number of posts per page so after that limit is met a new page is started at that point.