Please, next time just use the "add image" option.
To be fair, and if I remember correctly, there is a certain amount of time that someone is required to be a member of Head-Fi before they can post pictures. You know, to prevent spam.
Yeah, like I said before COD does get rated more on its MP aspect than its SP aspect. And this is the reality, COD is k own more for its MP. If COD really wanted to make their franchise worthwhile, they really need to make a longer SP. I felt that most of the CODs have a short campaign that has little replay value.
Now many people say that BF games have bad SP and I agree....why? The first BF games never had an SP lol
They were all about the MP experience and it did so well.
But the Bad Company series had some really good SP.
I just kind of wish COD wouldtake a break from the futuristic setting....like I said before, it has strayed away so much from where it had really started from and maybe going back to an older setting would be nice.
Please excuse me for editing your quote to kinda... group paragraphs.
I would pretty strongly disagree with several of these statements, agree with some, not have an opinion on others. I only played a demo of Bad Company, so I can't judge it. Battlefield 3's campaign was like a poor cousin of BLOPS', I don't know how that happened, but despite a few nice moments BF3's campaign was just too easy to compare to BLOPS and simply wasn't as interesting. I THINK I beat BF4's campaign? I honestly can't remember the first level, and I usually remember stories, movies, and game campaigns. The only thing I remember of BF4's campaign was the squad leader loses a leg, later on talks you into leaving him to drown in a van, all the while trying to justify everything that's happening by relating it to wolves. Also, the trailer had me obsessing about "Total Eclipse of the Heart" for awhile. But fragmented rant aside, I don't expect DICE to tell a great story, but I want a good one and judge each installment on their own merits.
People do expect a fun action story from CoD games, more than just a "tick the box" experience. It's fun, they try something different from time to time, have memorable setpiece "events," and most people play it through at least once. I've been having a tough time sloughing through BLOPS3's campaign... The missions have fair variety of gameplay, but each mission just seems to take so long, and I have a hard time relating to or enjoying what's happening on screen. Escaping a Russian prison with a sorta crazy accomplice (who somehow was in WWII as well)? Fun! Going through a dark stormy dock or through a blacked out science lab to hunt former teammates you met for 5 minutes 3 years ago under overtones of a conspiracy? Uh... Doesn't have a hook for me. But CoD can do neat stuff, and I for one don't mind the freedom of telling future stories... I actually found Ghost's story pretty fun. I'm with MLE here... I hadn't watched any footage or gameplay of MW:IW (infinity ward?) before the E3 conference, and liked what I saw in the trailer. Space flight combat could be really cool! I also liked the Mass Effect Galaxy Map/Destiny Director looking mission select screen... Maybe CoD is trying to borrow from Bungie again and try to make a replayable single player experience, with perhaps some choices and nonlinear interweaving?
In general for a story campaign, I don't think it needs to be long to be good. Dragon Age: Inquisition was good but it sure felt like there was LOTS of MMO-style time padding and grind, two things which I rarely find "fun." CoD's best campaign moments come from moments the player can relate to: CoD4 was set in a fictional war in the Middle East, when... America was involved in a war in the Middle East. I was a bit worried about the draft coming back. There was that moment we played a soldier trying to save a pilot that had saved our necks a few times in the campaign, but we got caught in a nuke. There was the first person moment where we were paraded through the streets, before being assassinated, first person. The powerful feeling of sneaking around in a ghillie suit or raining death from above in an AC-130. The worst parts of the game were when playing in the streets of "War Pig" in the part that looked like the multiplayer level "Crossfire," because enemies would respawn infinitely if you didn't advance, and gameplay was basically pick of a few entrenched enemies, sprint forward a bit, heal, snipe a few more, repeat. Bleh. Unfortunately, a lot of Battlefield multiplayer feels like that to me (assaulting a point), which is why I liked the planes and the indoor chaotic rushing moments that occurred sometimes. I also think a fair marker of success and "fun" comes from responsive controls, and the feeling empowerment without being too powerful that killing and dying is really easy. If my controls and the maps give me multiple options instead of feeling like "Here's the battle lines, and here's the meat-grinder no man's land inbetween," then I feel like my actions matter and I can make a difference.
The illusion of these continuing franchises is that the games are a known quantity before they come out. I'm sure everyone will agree that Battlefront 2 and 3 don't feel like the same experience, even if a lot of the mechanics are carried over. Same goes for the CoD games and Halo games. We'll see, eh?
Okay guys I have a quick question for you? In the $350-500 range what would you recommend for a headphone that is primarily used to play CS:GO, I'm trying to decide between the K712's HD-650 or HD700, Hifiman he400i's and I'm open to any other recommendation. I'll most likely use a schiit modi2u/magni2u to drive them!
The reason you got push back is basically people ask the same question once or twice a week. Also, the question is quick, but usually they don't seem like the people asking didn't put much though into the question, yet somehow expect a thoughtful answer. It starts to feel like unappreciated work for anyone who is a regular to this thread.
That said, for CS:GO, which is more of a sport than a game at this point, I'd recommend picking something with lots of comfort, good detail but a little subdued treble so the sharper sounds don't get fatiguing while you can still pick out a reload or any sign of a grenade before it explodes. Competitive play will depend on plenty of factors beyond audio, though of course audio can affect your awareness and reaction time factors. Also, consider if you're playing from home/dorm, or at a loud venue. If at a loud venue, you're pretty much going to throw away all audio fitness in exchange for isolation and being able to hear teammates and just generally react to "the action's over that way," and won't be too much help when you're shooting. I personally hate how sharp the gunshots are, and I'd probably pick a Sennheiser HD600, Sony MDR-MA900, or something with neutral or veiled highs if I was only going to focus on playing CS:GO. Well-executed N-shaped headphones are your friend. If you were playing a variety of games, maybe enjoying music and movies too, I think the K712 is a really strong all 'rounder. I'd recommend (opinion) against an HD700 or Beyerdynamic, you're using a sharp headphone on top of a sharp-sounding game. I haven't personally heard an X2 or spent much time with an HE400i, so no comment. IMO you don't need to spend the big bucks to play CS:GO, just need comfort physically and audibly.
