The Call of Duty issue

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Warforger:

Stormz:
I hate it because it shows everyone they can get away with creating a generic modern FPS game, re-release it each year and make a trillion dollars out of it. It doesn't promote innovation or creativity. People love it even though every single game is the same with a half assed campaign tacked on. If they just ditched singleplayer and made an mmo like they should it wouldn't be such a big deal.

and no, I don't dislike it just because it's popular.

What? The Elder Scrolls and Battlefield series are the same deal, oh sure they update the graphics but none of that is innovative or creative, none of their so-called "new" idea's are new at all and have been done in games before. And yet these games get so much praise and none of the hate. In fact in the last year of gaming all the games that brought forth new idea's flopped while the ones which just recycle old idea's and redo them over and over again profited tremendously.

Jegsimmons:
it really doesn't seem so much so when you realize COD is just copying halo and Battlefield....and really, COD is the most behind game of the 3.

Erm, Battlefield was originally just a war shooter Star Wars battlefront style, just battles and next to no story, when CoD got popular they made Bad Company which was the first game in the series to have a story with actual characters, so it's actually the other way around. Even then people tend to forget the original war shooter was Medal Of Honor, of course that game ripped off real life so the entire war shooter thing is unoriginal to begin with.

Want to know the biggest difference between Elder Scrolls and Call of Duty? Aside from the point that ones an FPS and the other an RPG series. Is that the Elder scrolls has tons of lore, interesting story lines, variety in play styles, and a massive world to explore. In Call of Duty you...shoot things, that's it. What else does it have for it? The Elder Scrolls may not innovate a lot, but it's still creative. I'd also like to add that those games have 100s of hours of singleplayer. Call of duty at best has 6 hours of game and the rest is boring mulitplayer on the same maps over and over again until they nickel and dime you for more map packs. If I'm paying 60$ for a game, it better have a singleplayer worth more then 6 hours, and if it is that short, it better be interesting. Call of Duty is not interesting, all it is is a massive American circle jerk.

Just like to add that the Elder scrolls also doesn't get a release every year, they actually spend time making the game great.

Iwata:
Hello to all.

I understand this issue may have appeared before, but I am indeed curious.

I have been a gamer since the 80's. I started with the ZX Spectrum, then the NES, Genesis, PC and so on and so forth.

Gaming has always been my main hobby. I have hundreds of games for several different platforms. I play everything (except JRPG's and sports games) and enjoy it. From Okami to Turning Point, from Uncharted to Command & Conquer.

So can someone explain to me why the minute I say I like Call of Duty, a vast portion of the community acts as if I'm somehow a pariah? How I should turn in my gaming club membership card?

Yes, I do like those games, and they are good games! They're fun, they're exciting, and as shooters, they get the job done. I don't play the multiplayer, but I do enjoy the campaigns, and yes, I do buy them when they come out. And enjoy them.

So I am asking, out of genuine curiosity, why this immensely negative outlook on Call of Duty and the people who play those games.

I don't hate people who hate cod, I personally like it, I own MW3 and Blops.

I think the main reason is that a large portion of the community though, are idiots, you could say that about a lot of other things, but the CoD community is slightly more vocal then most, and so if you say you like the games they assume you must be like most of the people in the community. I have no problem with CoD other than some of the fans, and that out of all the fantastic and wonderful, and artistic games tat exists, it's become "The" game, and I think we have better things to offer the CoD, but when non-gamers see the most popular game, and it's just vanilla, and Michael bay-ey, it doesn't give a great impression.

but honestly the games are fine, its the community that creates the biggest problems.

I do happen to enjoy Call of Duty, but in my opinion it definitely isn't a game for every occasion. It's like in the movies, sometimes I want the sophistication of a Godfather or a Casablanca, but sometimes I just want to watch Tony Jaa kick people in the face a lot.

Moreover, I feel like people who note that it's released with a few tweaks every year are forgetting that Madden was doing that way before Call of Duty and yet Madden seems to have gotten far less hate than Call of Duty.

What I feel like is really the issue is that Activision, Treyarch, and Infinity Ward seem to be in somewhat of a holding pattern, releasing consistently enjoyable games, and the optimist in me wants to believe that they will eventually produce something the quality of Modern Warfare 1.

Stormz:

Want to know the biggest difference between Elder Scrolls and Call of Duty? Aside from the point that ones an FPS and the other an RPG series. Is that the Elder scrolls has tons of lore, interesting story lines, variety in play styles, and a massive world to explore. In Call of Duty you...shoot things, that's it.

That's personal preference; not actual difference in quality.

Stormz:

What else does it have for it? The Elder Scrolls may not innovate a lot, but it's still creative. I'd also like to add that those games have 100s of hours of singleplayer. Call of duty at best has 6 hours of game and the rest is boring mulitplayer on the same maps over and over again until they nickel and dime you for more map packs.

Well yah, CoD is a game focused on multiplayer with a lesser focus on singleplayer, TES is only single player so of course.

Stormz:

If I'm paying 60$ for a game, it better have a singleplayer worth more then 6 hours, and if it is that short, it better be interesting. Call of Duty is not interesting, all it is is a massive American circle jerk.

Again, that is your opinion that you prefer standard fantasy to modern war shooters, a better argument for why it's bad is that each game they don't fix the issues of the last and at times add more issues like with all this commotion with the Dome map.

But I think the popularity factor is lost when you become a gaming nerd (or a nerd of anything for that matter) and only think in terms of what your group thinks not of what say casual people think.

Stormz:

Just like to add that the Elder scrolls also doesn't get a release every year, they actually spend time making the game great.

Actually if you account for the Fallout series being the same thing but with guns, it comes out to be around 1-2 years between releases, so not really.

theres somthing carthritic about spewing hate on somthing popular (like me and skyrim..FUCK SKYRIM...ahhh see that felt good)

as omone said, my main problem with COD is its impact on the general gaming landscape (perceived or otherwise)

ALSO...I mean comone...its kin of the same game over and over..backed by activision no less

They're absolutely rubbish. I haven't played a good CoD since Modern Warfare one.

Because you're immediately associated with the big bulk of snotty 13-year old cunts on Xbox Live who often makes me question if it's such a good thing that child morality rates are as low as they are.

I'm exaggerating of course, but that's sadly what people think of first, that's what they react to.

Also, CoD is like the physical embodiment of commercial rehash.

David Savage:
I do happen to enjoy Call of Duty, but in my opinion it definitely isn't a game for every occasion. It's like in the movies, sometimes I want the sophistication of a Godfather or a Casablanca, but sometimes I just want to watch Tony Jaa kick people in the face a lot.

Moreover, I feel like people who note that it's released with a few tweaks every year are forgetting that Madden was doing that way before Call of Duty and yet Madden seems to have gotten far less hate than Call of Duty.

What I feel like is really the issue is that Activision, Treyarch, and Infinity Ward seem to be in somewhat of a holding pattern, releasing consistently enjoyable games, and the optimist in me wants to believe that they will eventually produce something the quality of Modern Warfare 1.

Madden has that in common with all Sports games. It's absolutely bullshit of course, but I haven't seen Madden or Fifa break every sales record to the point where the universe threatens to dissolve into nothingness from the sheer ridiculousness of it all. Simply put, Madden just isn't big or important enough to get people's attention, and Sports games are kind of niche.

Damn, double post.

Call of Duty has spawned way too many horrid FPS games in its wake, and the latest iteration in the series is just plain broken. So that's why I hate it and won't be buying the next one. You're no less of a gamer for liking them, and the single player was fun. The multiplayer is what most people judge the game by, however, and that's the part that most people have a problem with. So just specify that you're only in it for the campaign and you'll be fine.

Stormz:
I hate it because it shows everyone they can get away with creating a generic modern FPS game, re-release it each year and make a trillion dollars out of it. It doesn't promote innovation or creativity. People love it even though every single game is the same with a half assed campaign tacked on. If they just ditched singleplayer and made an mmo like they should it wouldn't be such a big deal.

and no, I don't dislike it just because it's popular.

I think you do dislike it because it's popular, you just might not be aware of it. It's fun to be the underdog. It is fun to be the guy who likes the unpopular thing.. to some extent. Who are you to say it's "Generic"? Can you even define that word (intelligently) without looking at the dictionary? I honestly can't, but if you can can--you're awesome. I digress... getting back to my point, CoD has innovated. Each game features a new campaign. You are free to dislike the campaign, but it's entirely new, with new scripts, good guys, bad guys, scripted moments, and plot twists. I for one always enjoy the campaign in each CoD. They add new features to the multiplayer, too. New maps, guns, customizations, and recently they made it so you could change the way you earn killstreaks.

Ask yourself, if that's not innovation, what is? I cannot think of any sequel, to any game, that innovated more than that. A sequel adds new characters, new levels, new weapons (or puzzles or whatever the main gameplay attraction is,) sometimes new mechanics, and the sequels to CoD add all of those. Take a look at Final Fantasy XIII-2. (Or is it 14-2?) How different is that game from Final Fantasy XIII? Think about your favorite series, and ask yourself, how much did the sequels truly innovate?

CoD is a yearly franchise, like Madden, or whatever the soccer games are, or the baseball games, but it's a shooter. Maybe it's that people like to feel superior to other people. And it's easy to feel that way when you can just say, "Oh yeah, everyone who plays CoD is an idiot." You just made yourself feel superior to the 6 million + who enjoy CoD.

I have never been a big fan of the control schemes of first person shooters, and I am not very fond of the military. I also have an aversion to guns, so the games never have tickled my fancy. I am also not a fan of the elder scrolls games for they look just as brown as Call of Duty, and I can never adjust to the big red lips that just have to be on every female's face.

TheKasp:
Well, I for one despise CoD and the things it set in motion in the FPS genre. When I look at the most awarded games from my favorite genre it saddens me that terms like "fast-paced" are used to describe this incerdibly slow gameplay, this boring mechanics (full regen. hp, two weapon limits, the speed you move). I could go on and rant wide and bride about how I dislike this game.

But on the other hand, I won't judge someone just based on the games he played. Enjoying games I don't like doesn't make all the things you say suddenly bad, enjoying CoD (and not ONLY CoD) can't make your contribution to a discussion less worthy.

The problem is more that many people can't accept the fact that there are people who like Bay-esque spectacle. That there are people with different tastes.

You could easily say the same thing about Madden... but I guess it used to be something similar in that it was considered an insult to suggest that someone plays it, though to a much lesser extent than "Go back to your CoD" (or some variation thereof) is now.

I still dust off the older entries of the series every now and then, especially Call of Duty 4, but I just don't like the direction the series went after Modern Warfare 2, especially regarding the PC version.

I don't judge anyone for their shitty tastes, I'm pretty used to that, some of my best friends don't even like videogames at all, and yet, they're some of my best friends I've ever had.

I don't think it's worthy of all of the praise, and the game's spawned a genre of brown, realistic shooters that has been far too dominant for far too long.

It's probably got to the do with the stereotype. People hear that you like Call of Duty and they get the image of a 13 year old douchebage swearing his head of into his headset. Either that or it's people just being stupid and refusing to accept that people can enjoy games that they don't like.

Dude, as someone who's from the 80s you should know that there are much better games out there. I'm personally not nuts about the multiplayer but you only play the campaign? That's crazy and definitely not worth $60.

Because thats what humans do, some like things some dont.

Call of Duty is just a game, in the big scheme of things its not like its crippling the games industry

Mr. Eff:
What I don't like, however, is how they seem to influence every other type of game. All shooters seem to need competitive multiplayer, and other games that don't need them are getting action elements.

This is where I come at this from, with an additional bit:

I "hate" (too strong a word for my real feeling, but meh) Call of Duty - and its ilk, including Battlefield, Halo, Gears of War, and shooters in general - because its popularity creates a feeling amid the culture at large (mostly non-gamers, but several gamers buy into this as well) that this is what video games are - all that they are.

Well, that or World of Warcraft, anyway.

I'm often loathe to call myself a "gamer"* because the image that espouses in others' minds is of shooters or MMOs. But I don't play those games, and I hate that these games' popularity has dominated video gaming culture.

(*I don't really like the term "gamer" as used around here. I still consider "gaming" to refer to tabletop RPGs.)

I liked CoD until MW3. I adored MW1, enjoyed MW2, hated Black Ops, and dislike MW3 for keeping all the bad aspects from MW2 and BlOps and combining the 2 into a cesspool of "ugh".

Iwata:
Yes, I do like those games, and they are good games! They're fun, they're exciting, and as shooters, they get the job done. I don't play the multiplayer, but I do enjoy the campaigns, and yes, I do buy them when they come out. And enjoy them.

See, that is your problem.
I play the campaign for about a day, play the spec ops and what not, then I play the multiplayer.
As someone that has about 3 weeks of game time across CoD4, MW2, Black Ops and MW3, I think that I can honestly say that the multiplayer fucking sucks. Not only are there serious flaws in the gameplay, there is this thing called sniperfrog.exe.

You can also tell that the games cater to the casual crowd and don't give a fuck about the people who play the game seriously.
If the gameplay issues were balanced and the built in game equalizer taken out, then I would enjoy CoD; I love MW2, but recently CoD has just been one disappointment after another.

CoD DOES have good campaigns (I fucking hate Black Ops, shittiest campaign I have ever played) but they focus on the multiplayer aspect. Most people talk/argue about the multiplayer as well. So when someone disregards your position because you defend CoD, they assume you are one of the millions of retards that plays CoD because their friends tell them to buy it and because "it's another CoD".

BarbaricGoose:

Stormz:
I hate it because it shows everyone they can get away with creating a generic modern FPS game, re-release it each year and make a trillion dollars out of it. It doesn't promote innovation or creativity. People love it even though every single game is the same with a half assed campaign tacked on. If they just ditched singleplayer and made an mmo like they should it wouldn't be such a big deal.

and no, I don't dislike it just because it's popular.

I think you do dislike it because it's popular, you just might not be aware of it. It's fun to be the underdog. It is fun to be the guy who likes the unpopular thing.. to some extent. Who are you to say it's "Generic"? Can you even define that word (intelligently) without looking at the dictionary? I honestly can't, but if you can can--you're awesome. I digress... getting back to my point, CoD has innovated. Each game features a new campaign. You are free to dislike the campaign, but it's entirely new, with new scripts, good guys, bad guys, scripted moments, and plot twists. I for one always enjoy the campaign in each CoD. They add new features to the multiplayer, too. New maps, guns, customizations, and recently they made it so you could change the way you earn killstreaks.

Ask yourself, if that's not innovation, what is? I cannot think of any sequel, to any game, that innovated more than that. A sequel adds new characters, new levels, new weapons (or puzzles or whatever the main gameplay attraction is,) sometimes new mechanics, and the sequels to CoD add all of those. Take a look at Final Fantasy XIII-2. (Or is it 14-2?) How different is that game from Final Fantasy XIII? Think about your favorite series, and ask yourself, how much did the sequels truly innovate?

CoD is a yearly franchise, like Madden, or whatever the soccer games are, or the baseball games, but it's a shooter. Maybe it's that people like to feel superior to other people. And it's easy to feel that way when you can just say, "Oh yeah, everyone who plays CoD is an idiot." You just made yourself feel superior to the 6 million + who enjoy CoD.

If I disliked the games solely based on the fact that they are popular. I would also hate Gears of war and Halo, but I don't. I enjoy both (Gears of War I'm a big fan of)

It's what Call of Duty represents that makes me hate it. Like my post said. It gives the impression that anyone can make a 6 hour FPS. Put in multiplayer and call it a day. The games break records every time they get a new release despite them all playing exactly the same. Adding some new guns and maps doesn't make it new or innovative. It's the same with sports games, they'd be better off just releasing them as DLC instead of making people pay for a 60$ game. I could possibly forgive them if they at least had some good stories in there, but they lack that as well. I'm tired of playing as amazing buff Americans going in and saving the world from the evil Russians/Germans/Koreans or whatever country is evil in the game. Give us something interesting for a change.

I'm surprised people haven't gotten tired of the games yet. I wonder when they will, maybe in 20 years when Call of Duty 200 is released.

krellen:

Mr. Eff:
What I don't like, however, is how they seem to influence every other type of game. All shooters seem to need competitive multiplayer, and other games that don't need them are getting action elements.

This is where I come at this from, with an additional bit:

I "hate" (too strong a word for my real feeling, but meh) Call of Duty - and its ilk, including Battlefield, Halo, Gears of War, and shooters in general - because its popularity creates a feeling amid the culture at large (mostly non-gamers, but several gamers buy into this as well) that this is what video games are - all that they are.

Well, that or World of Warcraft, anyway.

I'm often loathe to call myself a "gamer"* because the image that espouses in others' minds is of shooters or MMOs. But I don't play those games, and I hate that these games' popularity has dominated video gaming culture.

(*I don't really like the term "gamer" as used around here. I still consider "gaming" to refer to tabletop RPGs.)

This is also a great point.

Stormz:
I hate it because it shows everyone they can get away with creating a generic modern FPS game, re-release it each year and make a trillion dollars out of it. It doesn't promote innovation or creativity. People love it even though every single game is the same with a half assed campaign tacked on. If they just ditched singleplayer and made an mmo like they should it wouldn't be such a big deal.

and no, I don't dislike it just because it's popular.

Pretty much this. I started playing COD when the first one came out for PC. I loved it. The second one (still one of my favorite shooters of all time) was even better. After that I had a little break from COD sort of. Not purposely, it just kinda happened. I got back to the series with Modern Warfare 2 (I did play COD 4 but not extensively) and I loved it. It was fun, fast, action packed. I played it all the time with my friends and had a lot of fun doing so. And to this day I enjoy playing it, be it a lot less often.

I don't even care that people hate the game or the mistakes it made. And I am in no way denying the many many flaws the game has. But it just works for me. As long as I have friends to play it with I will. But Black Ops proved detrimental to the way I think of COD. It was the last one I bought and I was terribly disappointed.

It started to look more and more like they're just out for the money and nothing else (shocking, I know.) as even MW2 proved. The games are "shat" out every year to make insane amounts of money, not to give people a great game to play. They make no (or retarded) attempts to provide post-launch service, they don't put any effort into re-inventing themselves.

All these things turned me off the COD series because I no longer want to support the company that makes it. Robert Bowling (Or Trolling >.>) is a prime example of how they are just pulling a veil over people's eyes. Also the whole "making the game accessible for everyone" resulted in the COD community being 1)A lot younger than they should legally be and 2)Filled with people who eagerly exploit the fact that you don't have to be skilled to play this game.

Wall-o-text *glares over post* Oh well.

erttheking:
Because people think that it's causing a lack of innovation in gaming, a guess those people conveniently forget about Skyrim, Arkham City, Human Revolution, Space Marine and Mass Effect 3. I guess the majority of gamers are insecure.

That's exactly what it is doing, though. People praised Human Revolution, but if you compare it with the first Deus Ex...

See, the reason why people get pissed about Call of Duty, or at least the reason why I get pissed about Call of Duty, isn't just because I'm a hipster who hates everything that is mainstream, or because I'm some kind of misanthrope who despises the idea that people should be allowed to have fun. It's mostly the same reason why the average person gets a little pissed when they hear some celebrity bought a mansion for $13 million, or bought a Ferrari for their 16-year-old stepdaughter after they crashed their previous Ferrari into a lamppost. It's because you know the money could be (and should be) spent on so many better things.

So when you see millions that are spent developing and producing games like Call of Duty, and there's basically a new one every year (if you can call it new, when it's really basically just the same game with a different outfit), and tens of millions of people just lap it right up, then it communicates to the company that they're doing something right and they should just keep right on doing it. And so you see brilliant games getting relegated to the "indie games" market where they'll never be able to secure even a fraction of the budget of some big mainstream game's ad campaign, all because they're actually trying to do something new and original. All of the games you named are sequels or part of an existing series, which... honestly, what does that say about the mainstream game industry when the vast majority of their new products are sequels?

There's another element to it too. If you're a game fan, then most likely not only do you care about playing games that are fun, but you also care about the way games are perceived by the world at large, and the way that games are portrayed by the media. If you're a games fan you probably would like to see games actually respected as an art form sooner or later, on par with film and music, rather than simply being thought of as an interactive form of transformer and GI Joe toys. And if you're a games fan, you probably get upset when Fox News airs yet another story about how video games made some kid kill his neighbor's dog, or something like that, because you know what a bunch of rubbish it is. So, with all those things in mind, if you're a games fan, it's going to make you a little bit upset to know that the games industry continues to reinforce all of the negative stereotypes about the industry and about games as a medium by producing the same shitty shallow mindless racist war games year after year after year.

So basically what it comes down to is that, yeah, Call of Duty games aren't the worst games in the world. You could do far worse. But you know why they're so hated? It's because we deserve better.

I though MW3's multiplayer wasn't as good as MW2, so I haven't sunk near as much time into it, nor do I plan to.

One thing that really bothers me though: people say that Modern Warfare 3 didn't innovate, it just changed a few things and re-released a "expansion pack" at full price. I must ask this:

In what way(s) did people expect MW3 to innovate?

-You couldn't add a fun an exciting movement mechanic like jetpacks or rocket boots or something because it is supposed to be "near future" warfare, and stuff like that isn't anywhere near mainstream enough to fit within MW3's mythos. They would feel out of place.

-The guns are, well, guns. They're not very different from each other; they all shoot hot lead at high speed, and a couple have projectiles that go boom instead. Laser guns, shuriken-and-lightning guns, Jimi-Hendrix-experience guns just don't fit. They wouldn't make sense, and they'd feel tacked on and stupid.

-Map design has to take the movement into consideration. Everything has to be navigable; ledges can't be more than a few feet high, slopes or ladders are necessary to connect high ground to low, etc. After having so many maps throughout all its games, it's no wonder that they start to feel reused.

-Health regeneration has been there since the very beginning; yeah, it's annoying that people can just sit behind cover and heal back up, necessitating that you shoot them again, but consider this: there are a few ways to implement things like health packs. You could A) have them spawn at certain locations on the map, B) have them spawn randomly, or C) have them as a deployable thing like the Battlefield series does with medpacks. Option A means people will just camp a medpack location, gaining instant health upon taking damage and punishing players who move to places without nearby medpacks. Option B adds an element of pure luck to encounters: you start shooting someone, a medpack spawns near them, they heal up and kill you. Option C is just a roundabout way of implementing regenerating health; instead of healing automatically, the player has press a few buttons to make their health return. No real difference to gameplay.

Bottom line, I wasn't expecting anything other than what I got from the experience. But instead of bitching at high volume everywhere I go, I'm going to vote with my wallet and not buy Black Ops 2. Activision will listen much harder to its whining, empty-pocketed stockholders than they would ever listen to me.

Iwata:

So can someone explain to me why the minute I say I like Call of Duty, a vast portion of the community acts as if I'm somehow a pariah? How I should turn in my gaming club membership card?

Yes, I do like those games, and they are good games! They're fun, they're exciting, and as shooters, they get the job done. I don't play the multiplayer, but I do enjoy the campaigns, and yes, I do buy them when they come out. And enjoy them.

So I am asking, out of genuine curiosity, why this immensely negative outlook on Call of Duty and the people who play those games.

There's your problem right there. When you say you like CoD you are basically calling a hitman on yourself because most people like that game(that have played it) and that ends up being in the millions. It gets annoying to some people that CoD fans keep making it seem so awesome when they see nothing in it so they get angry at the constant fanboy abuse. Hope that helps you not step on another landmine of a topic :)

Its popular? KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
People have been doing this constantly. It started with Pac-Man, then Mario, then Doom, then Unreal Tournament, then Starcraft, then Halo, and now Call of Duty (there were many more, I can tell you that). Hell, Battlefield is getting hate now just because it got popular. There is always this mentality of "appose the man" idea, which is not always right. Call of Duty is popular for a reason, it was great, and is still pretty good. Halo was popular for a reason, all of these games are. In fact, and easy argument could be made that Call of Duty is better than many online community fave's like Minecraft. Don't worry, once COD looses steam (which it will, they all have), a new idol will come for the masses to first love then vow to destroy.

Its people getting upset of something that they really don't need to let bother them. if you don't like CoD don't play it. I mean its not actually harming anyone.

Warforger:
Erm, Battlefield was originally just a war shooter Star Wars battlefront style, just battles and next to no story, when CoD got popular they made Bad Company which was the first game in the series to have a story with actual characters, so it's actually the other way around. Even then people tend to forget the original war shooter was Medal Of Honor, of course that game ripped off real life so the entire war shooter thing is unoriginal to begin with.

And about as many people buy CoD for the story as people who buy Playboy for the articles.

Sure, you bought it the for story, little buddy, which is why you never beat it and are 8th prestige! *tousles hair* (This is directed at nobody in particular, just as a disclaimer).

But I think he means as far as eras go.

Battlefield 1942: September, 2002.
Call of Duty: October, 2003.

Battlefield Vietnam: March, 2004.
Black Ops: November, 2010.

Battlefield 2: June, 2005.
Call of Duty 4: November, 2007.

Battlefield 2142: October, 2006.
Call of Duty doesn't have a future shooter yet, but give it time.

Like I get there are only so many eras in which to wage war, but if they could've gotten to any of them first, it would be cool.

The problem is with a future shooter, it would require the creators to be creative...disregard that. Even Sci-fi has gone to the realism dogs. No more badass laser guns and whacky explosive launchers with whacky secondary fire or shooting a chemical gun that spews balls of green goop. It is all bang bang assault rifles.

I think Buzz said it best...

image

Most of the hate REALLY DOES just come from the fact that it's popular, I'm not a huge fan myself, but that's mostly because I just don't "get" the military FPS thing, I don't deny that it's a fun little series with lots of good qualities and I understand why people like it.

Now there are people, myself included, who dislike how Activision milks the franchise so blatantly, it's annual release schedule is just dumb, and it does function for SOME people (SOME, NOT ALL) as military fetishist gun porn, but you could say the same thing about a lot of games and franchises, so I wouldn't hold it against it.

But you know what, at least MW3 didn't have an online pass, so I'd recommend it above Battlefield 3 INFINITELY.

I've only played a little bit of COD when I was over at my nephews's house. And from what I've played it was pretty fun. Not something I'd personally buy, but still, I can see why people may like it.

To me it seems like most of the hate COD and games like it get are because it's popular. And there seems to be this idea that those kinds of games are ruining the game industry because there is so many of them. By that logic, the game industry would have been ruined way back in the nineties when platformers with colorful mascots like Mario, Sonic, Banjo-Kazooie, Spyro, and the like were the dominant genre.

Another reason would be because people just don't like it. Simple as that.

Iwata:
Hello to all.

I understand this issue may have appeared before, but I am indeed curious.

I have been a gamer since the 80's. I started with the ZX Spectrum, then the NES, Genesis, PC and so on and so forth.

Gaming has always been my main hobby. I have hundreds of games for several different platforms. I play everything (except JRPG's and sports games) and enjoy it. From Okami to Turning Point, from Uncharted to Command & Conquer.

So can someone explain to me why the minute I say I like Call of Duty, a vast portion of the community acts as if I'm somehow a pariah? How I should turn in my gaming club membership card?

Yes, I do like those games, and they are good games! They're fun, they're exciting, and as shooters, they get the job done. I don't play the multiplayer, but I do enjoy the campaigns, and yes, I do buy them when they come out. And enjoy them.

So I am asking, out of genuine curiosity, why this immensely negative outlook on Call of Duty and the people who play those games.

Well for one you could give specific examples of how they actually object? I think treating you like "A pariah" is somewhat of a hyperbole, there isn't much definition to base a discussion on.

Call of Duty is good, but it has also screwed over many things:
-atrocious single player after the excellence of COD4's single-player
-extremely shoddy treatment of their employees
-the unreasonably high sales dominate the yearly sales too much with forced march upgrade
-charging so much for the map packs, doubles the cost of the game and fractures the community
-very unbalanced gameplay changes, like
-Marginalisation of PC gamers with various cack-handed efforts
-Activision's general bad business practice like liquidating successful studios

But overall, games like Black Ops multiplayer is still one of the best multiplayer FPS games on console. But Modern Warfare 3 was just so ROUTINE! There were a hundred little improvements but more than ANY of the previous games this felt EXACTLY like an expansion pack. So many assets like character models and weapons models and objects were completely recycled. And of course there is still the critical lack of any sort of teamwork in these games, it seems team deathmatch is popular mainly for how its easier to get high killstreaks than in free-for-all the spawns will get you killed.

There are so many other games out there that offer so much more yet are comparatively ignored:
-Left 4 Dead = great teamwork game, such an essential element of multiplayer
-Unreal Tournament 2004, Quake Live for the fast paced deathmatch
-Team Fortress 2 for heavily class-based team-multiplayer with a focus on environmental objectives over K/D ratio
-Battlefield 3 for the more sim oriented modern war-gamer.

So I hope you can understand why there is a certain amount of backlash against CoD games, even though the games by themselves are quite good. They just don't quite compensate for it's insanely high sales (25 million for MW3>!??! WTFBBQ?!?) and undue attention. Like how every gun vid on youtube is polluted with CoD gamers ignorant of actual gun use.

Iwata:

Forlong:
Because some people just don't like it and don't understand how other people could.

I understand that. But I think it goes beyond that. Some people are driven to systematicaly point out that they hate the games and the people who play them, whenever the topic or opportunity arises. It goes beyond simple dislike, I believe, it's an outright phenomenon.

It's not necessarily the game itself that people hate, it's the transition from single platform to multiplatform and trend of designing games to be more "inclusive" that people hate. FPS games used to be purely the domain of the PC until halo. Yes, there was goldeneye first, but that was hardly the same standard as the same era PC based FPS games. People widely hated Halo as well, call of duty is simply the next step, in that not only is it not PC exclusive, it's not even console exclusive. It is released every year and reminds people of "those stupid sports games all the sheep we mock play". There's plenty to not like about the games, especially if you start playing them looking for reasons to hate.

erttheking:
Because people think that it's causing a lack of innovation in gaming, a guess those people conveniently forget about Skyrim, Arkham City, Human Revolution, Space Marine and Mass Effect 3. I guess the majority of gamers are insecure.

Your list of innovative games is 4 sequels (all of which are very similar to previous games in the series) and a gears of war style third person shooter?

If I was going to argue about innovation (and it's not especially hard to argue that it's alive and kicking in the games industry) I'd probably try a little bit harder wth my examples.

Gmans uncle:
it does function for SOME people (SOME, NOT ALL) as military fetishist gun porn, but you could say the same thing about a lot of games and franchises, so I wouldn't hold it against it.

Actually, you could NOT say that for CoD as actual "gun fetishists" despise CoD for it's INACCURATE depiction of guns. They are livid at the mere mention of CoD in a youtube video demonstrating a REAL gun!

Examples of bullshit that makes gun-nuts livid:
-dual wielding any weapon without both terrible accuracy and rate of fire, especially dual G18 machine pistols
-reload for dual wield is not slower but often QUICKER!
-suppressors reducing range
-shotguns pitiful range and power (yes, even the Akimbo Rangers)
-Ability to sprint with a .50BMG Barret rifle carried free-hand in the arms.
-Improper naming of guns in general

Despite the obvious laziness shown in MW3, all the COD games have been great and I really can't see why people outright hating the latest additions. I can understand if they are merely not your thing, but for example a common argument I observed for why MW3 is a bad game is that it is almost exactly the same as MW2. I can't argue that MW3 is very different from MW2 but does it need to be? Yes, the game is a copy and paste from the previous title, but this is not a bad thing, MW2 was a great and enjoyable game, nothing needs to be changed for the sequel, the formula works well, they should not change it and instead polish the minor issues, which is exactly what they have done. I fail to see why people insist sequels to be hugely innovative.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked