I don't hate Call of Duty, but I don't feel it deserves much attention.
I personally feel it adds no more to the market's diversity and liveliness than each Fifa game does.

Glademaster:

HarryScull:

Glademaster:

skyrim is a different beast to Oblivion. It has completely new spell mechanics, new forging mechanics, dual wielding, new perk mechanics, reduced stats, changed levelling up mechanics and then the standard stuff like new spell types via shouts and the gimmicky stuff like the stylish kills. It also has mods on CoD so it can become what you want it to be something CoD could have but it decided to forgo to try and get more money from DLC.

oh boy you baited me here, so ways in which Blops is different to mw2
1. new guns/gun balance (more powerful SMG's/assult rifles less powerful shotguns/snipers)
2. the spawn system
3. the traffic pattern
4. whole new maps
5. whole new game types
6. wager matches
7. flack jacket changed objective games hugely
8. killstreaks were no longer stackable
9. it was allot less noob friendly
10. it added a huge amount of customization on the form of your weapon and emblem
11. for what its worth it had zombies (although cod 5 had zombies)

yep skyrim is much more innovative than call of duty!/sarcasm

in truth they are probably on about the same level of innovation, keeping core gameplay mechanics and changing other features to create a different game, which is the right thing to do.

could you imagine if skyrim 2 came out and it was a linear cover based shooter? most people would lose their shit and thats what people want from call of duty, if you expect a different game very release you are not going to get it and for good reason

1. The balance was awful and I don't go around giving praise for doing a shit job.
2. Same as above and the spawn system has not changed since CoD 4 in any noticeable or good fashion.
3. Already mention as part of theatre.
4. Skyrim has new maps and every game has new maps. New maps is not a big or innovative thing especially when all of the new maps involve the same gameplay style.
5 & 6. These are really the same point as those were the only new things which were pretty much already taken from other things and the pre game of scrims so no nothing innovative there.
7. Yes in WaW...
8. Not exactly an innovation now is it?
9. No it wasn't unless you're talking about making latter weapons genuinely better than lower ones which was not a good thing.
10. Yes and that affected gameplay how?
11. Not innovation but I'll give you this one in comparison to CoD.

All in all you mentioned 2 things I forgot and one which was completely superficial and aesthetic which is hardly a big change. A good few of the things you mentioned I already mentioned that were new anyway.

1. the balance in Blops is very good with the exception of the famas and 74U, but it changed the game from sniping, quickscopers and shotgun/SMG secondary's to a whole new gun set up, its not perfect but its good and differant
2. it really did, for one you spawn further away from the action, also spawns stick more and are harder to flip and are put in positions of cover to help stop spawn killing
3.??? whole fucking new traffic patterns, instead of the fight being spread out and all over the place it occurs along very specific paths and area's (also thanks for reminding me, it added theater mode)
4. yes skyrim and cod both add new maps, the maps in blops were very different to mw2 in the way they played
5. wager matches are completely separate to standard MP, also i forgot to mention the cod point system was added
6.??? it changed all game types as instead of being able to nade an objective you actually have to get up close and shoot the guy making defense much harder, especially with the objectives being put in much harder spots to defend than in mw2
7.it hugely changed how people played the game, from getting a 5 killstreak and building to a 11 to playing with a whole range of kill streaks from a 3,4,5 to a 8,9,11 and widened the gap between a skilled player and a noob, and forced people to play smart for killstreaks not just get a lucky 5 killstreak
8. mw2 had deathstreaks, nooob tubes, guns with lower recoil and stopping power, this made it a much more noob friendly game than Blops
9. it didnt but its still a cool innovation that i can have a cool clan tag and emblem on my gun

your arguing from a position of ignorance my friend and its just making you look stupid to me

HarryScull:

your arguing from a position of ignorance my friend and its just making you look stupid to me

Yes because 1,000 hours 700 of which I can vouch for through xfire on CoDs 2 and 4 and 40 painful hours of BO puts me at a point of ignorance. Along with playing many scrims. I never have and never will touch the shit that was MW2 as I will never let that sorry excuse for a fuck you to part of its fanbase touch any of my hdds.

The game was only ever about quick scoping on consoles and making spawns stick more was not a good thing. The game did not help stop spawn killing at all and only served to exacerbate the issue even more.

Also having maps that make everything close quarters to mid combat is not an improvement it is stale and boring.

The CoD point system was a joke and nothing I would ever applaud as it did the exact opposite of what was intended. I wouldn't hold up something that straight out failed.

Not a big deal since it was in WaW so it was already done before in the same series thus not an innovation and the maps were generally a clusterfuck so that was not an issue but since I was comparing to CoD 4 I didn't want to make a big issue of it.

It really didn't it just made people camp more and more likely to use the more wildly imbalance weapons in comparison to other games. The killstreaks they added just made the game entirely bull shit if you were unlucky enough to get someone with a high killstreak. 1 person getting 1 killstreak should not win you the game.

I have no idea what killstreak variety was in MW 2 but in BO it may as well have had the variety of CoD 4 as everyone bar 2 people used all the same stuff.

Black Ops has much more powerful spray and pray guns, flamethrower attachments, noobtubes, shotgun attachments and ballistic knife. The only thing holding it back from being noob friendly is death streaks.

I think that there's a difference between playing COD competitively, and playing online. I just don't play COD, I might have the odd game, but I don't go out of my way to play it, not like I will do with BF3. Sorry to make that comparison, but anyway. When I did play Black Ops, it would tend to be co-op split screen, those missions where you have to use stealth, or wipe out an insurgent village etc. I found that to be quite good fun, and not as frustrating as playing online.

Really, I think COD3 ruined COD for me... I really liked the original 2 games, then I got COD3 on xbox and could work out what the hell had happened with it. Running around trying to play online, it was just so badly implimented, jeeps that don't work right... and I could see where the franchise was going, close quarter run-in-with-your-dick-in-hand gameplay, kinda like being forced through a cheese grater, or mincing machine, in a loop.
Now the gameplay has obviously improved and now it's a more viceral game, still close quarters, still being fed into a mincer, but I can see how that's my fault for not playing the game since birth. Thing is, I prefer to play games my own way, and I don't play the way that works well with COD. I play COD and hope not to die too much, I play BF3 and hope not to die! - it's much more difficult for people to completely own you, you can always catch a break, jump in a tank, and there seems to be some good team based gameplay in there if you get into a good server. COD is lacking that, everybody seems to be out for themself - everyone wants to get a nuke or whatever and win the game, who cares about the rest of the team.

I guess COD just doesn't quite gel with me - I prefer my games to be slower paced and more tactical, with a faster paced game like COD, well there has to be balance, and that's missing IMO. If your fighting over a large map, then the faster you respawn the better - you might have a long run before you get near any action, so the quicker you get back onto the battle the better. With a small map, close quarters, well there has to be some sort of balance - a close quarters game with quick respawns is basically a meat grinder, respawn-run-die-respawn-run-die... gets tiresome. If they did something like CounterStrike, say the rounds are quicker, 3 rounds per map and if you die, you are spectating until the next round - add in some reason not to run and die, make people reconsider and think about their next move, make it risky to sit and camp. I'm not saying other FPS games are perfect, but I would say that Counterstrike is a great way to do close quarters, and BF3 is the epiphony of battling over a large area. COD would be one of my favorite games if it just picked a side and stuck to it.

I don't think COD deserves the success it has, because it belittles the efforts that other FPS games make - like Farcry2 - that has some great features, great viceral gameplay that COD fans should love - both long range and close quarters battles, vehicles, a fricken map editor, leatherman surgery, setting fires, great explosives. The single player game is far better than COD's, and probably most MP centric FPS games, it's like story based and free roaming at the same time. Yet, it's about as popular as German dentist - it gets to the point where Farcry3 looks awesome, but it's almost pointless to hold onto any hope for it, a FPS game with a holy-christ-how-epic map editor and kick-ass SP campaign should be the top dog, but because the COD franchise exists, it will never even get close.

So, I guess what I'm saying is COD is over-rated, it detrements the cool stuff that other FPS games try to offer, it stiffles the evolution of it's own genre, and it won't ever change very much, just in case some millions of fanboys get all butt-hurt about it. I'd love to see the next COD game do things differently, not so much bringing a couple of nice visuals to the table, but wipe the table clear and start with the best features of COD and then evolve. Maybe the popularity of BF3 will enforce that, time will tell. I'd love to see the next COD reinvent itself, and tell it's fanboys to either get on with it, or get over it.

Grey Day for Elcia:

TheKasp:
Ehm, the Twilight movies are bad

Aaannnddd you lost every single ounce of credibility you could have had. You don't get to decide what is good or bad for other people. Sorry. Sit down, get off your pedestal, and stop trying to act like art isn't subjective.

There are commonly accepted standards by which literature and film are judged. By those standards, Twilight (the book and the movie) are terrible. Are these standards subjective? Yup. Does that mean that they are somehow invalid? Of course not.

I don't hate Call of Duty, but I dislike it a lot. There are a few simple reasons behind it though:

First, I don't like that there is one bought out every year. The only really other genre to do this are sports games. Games that are bought out yearly are rarely anything of quality. Sure, the Call of Duty games may be good games, but that doesn't change that fact that there is no innovation. It starts of good but over time you just end up buying because you have all the others.

Take the Sims series for example. Sims 1 was fresh. It was original. And then they bought out expansion packs, and they were awesome! There was thought put into them and they made the game so much more fun to play. Then they bought out the Sims 2, and while they changed things, it was pretty much the Sims again. And now, with the Sims 3, they've done nothing new again. There is a reason why Sims 1 sold so much better than say Sims 3.

The same goes for Call of Duty. You bought the first one and enjoyed it. The only reason it's held up slightly better is because 2 studios were working on it as opposed to 1. Honestly, how many times can you kill terrorist before it gets old?

Second, it's generic. There is a reason why it's sold so well: there is nothing unique or interesting about it. At least Halo and Gears of War have sci-fi elements. It doesn't take any risks with what it does or try to make anything different. The only drastic thing I can say they've done is zombies, and that not even an original idea.

Third, and this is a personal one, as someone who's worked in a video games store it is games like Call of Duty that are a reason we don't have an R18 rating in Australia, second only to the Grand Theft Autos. I literally can't tell you just how many underage kids come in and get copies of Call of Duty because 'All my friends have it' or 'I can't not have it'. While that's not a fault of the game itself and more to do with poor parenting, the sheer popularity of it makes parents think it can't be that bad if everyone is playing it.

But that's just me.

Glademaster:

HarryScull:

your arguing from a position of ignorance my friend and its just making you look stupid to me

Yes because 1,000 hours 700 of which I can vouch for through xfire on CoDs 2 and 4 and 40 painful hours of BO puts me at a point of ignorance.

you put 40 hours into Blops, i put over 200 hours into it and played competitively...

you can argue that it is bad but not that its not innovative

HarryScull:

9. mw2 had deathstreaks, nooob tubes, guns with lower recoil and stopping power, this made it a much more noob friendly game than Blops

All Call of Duty games are "noob friendly" - a major design goal of the games seems to be to make them very easy for casual players to get into. Hence the auto-aim, hitscan, insta-kill grenade launchers, deathstreaks, killstreaks, and so on.

I dislike call of duty and modern warfare because all of the games have largely been the same, it's just war games that we've all seen before, the "storyline" in single player, and that's a term i'm using generously is weaker than wet toilet paper, i don't play games that don't have a storyline or at the very least bring something new to a long running series (and i'm not talking cosmetic or minor changes)

HarryScull:

Glademaster:

HarryScull:

your arguing from a position of ignorance my friend and its just making you look stupid to me

Yes because 1,000 hours 700 of which I can vouch for through xfire on CoDs 2 and 4 and 40 painful hours of BO puts me at a point of ignorance.

you put 40 hours into Blops, i put over 300 hours into it and played competitively...

you can argue that it is bad but not that its not innovative

So I need to play more than 40 hours to realise CoD has stopped innovating? You don't need to play a game for even 10 hours to realise it hasn't changed in any meaningful or good ways. You don't need to play a game competitively either to realise it doesn't innovate. I can argue why I think it is bad but I shouldn't need to argue that the only things it has added to the series are wager match, minor customisation, slightly balanced killstreak mechanics and theatre. Anything else is standard for a new game and is not innovation. Even what is has done since CoD 4 has only been innovation with the series and has not moved forward the genre like CoD 4. Now no one expects every game to do that but I want a bit more out of my FPS than what BO did.

SiskoBlue:
There are plenty of examples of people hating something simply becauses it's hugely popular;
Angry Birds, Twilight, CoD, Mario/Zelda/Nintendo, Xbox, Sony, Titanic, Dances with Wolves, the list goes on.

People don't dislike Twilight because it's popular, they dislike it because it is badly written. People don't dislike Titanic because it's popular, they dislike it because it's a bloated movie that derails an interesting historical story for a maudlin romance. People don't dislike Dances with Wolves because it's popular, they dislike it because it's a bloated Kevin Costner ego project that's also kind of racist.

Like, I get that you read a couple of wikipedia articles on intro psych topics and want to apply them, but many things are disliked for actual reasons.

-One of the worst (if not THE worst) fanbase in gaming.

-Makes money hand over fist, money that it doesn't deserve.

-Isn't very good. CoD2 and CoD4 were the only "good" ones, and they weren't spectacular.

-Lazy. Despite having the biggest brand power in the industry, titanic profit margins and the biggest company behind it, it doesn't update or improve or innovate. Same engine, same visuals, same poor story, same unbalanced, easy and boring multiplayer, same yearly release.

Lumber Barber:

Grey Day for Elcia:

TheKasp:
Ehm, the Twilight movies are bad

Aaannnddd you lost every single ounce of credibility you could have had. You don't get to decide what is good or bad for other people. Sorry. Sit down, get off your pedestal, and stop trying to act like art isn't subjective.

CoD is not art, just like most video games. However, you are right in that it's still completely subjective.

What is and isn't art is as subjective a question as 'what is funny?'

It's not as simple as either side makes it out to be.

1st off, what your describing is not innovation. It is iteration. Games generally get better by doing one of 2 things. One, by coming up with new, interesting, untested idea to grow the set of possibilities in play. The other is to take existing ideas and tweak and tune them to make it something better. Both are difficult to do right, and create fantastic games. But we live in a world where innovation can seem like a distant dream. It's not so much that people think that CoD is unoriginal in and of itself, it's that so many other games reject the very important component of innovation because Call of Duty is so successful. Of course, that's a problem with the industry, not Call of Duty. Complaining about CoD for its stagnation is kind of like being forced to eat nothing but Dominos, Little Ceasers, and Pizza Hut for a month, and then walking into a mom and pop pizza shop and screaming at the owner, "I'M SICK OF FRICKEN PIZZA!".

Of course, CoD is not a stranger to innovation. If you take the original Modern Warfare, there was a lot of innovation going. I seem to remember some comments about how it was a refreshingly down to earth game that finally broke away from the over-saturated WWII shooter market. But that was 5 games ago. Multiplayer may receive tweaks and variations, but it is all variants of the same core aestetic, and easy for a person who is not hardcore into the multiplayer to not appreciate as being worth $60. The other problem is that CoD does this thing where the single player portion is great, but very short. The game can end up being judged based on that limited content. CoD succeeds because of the combination of short but sweet campaign, interesting side content like Spec Ops or Zombies, and a refinement of the multiplayer as one giant package. But take each of those individually and you have a criminally short game, the equivalent of an extra content DVD, and a tweaking that can only be appreciated by hardcore fans

Also, CoD is accessible, focusing on mass appeal. This is not bad, but it does undermine a sense of community. Its a fallacy that appealing to a larger market must take away from the smaller market. Also, that appeal comes from a very different sort of dyamic then most gamers are used to in their shooters. While a casual gamer can accept a sudden death from half way across the map as a realistic portrayal of real guns, and dismiss deaths from killstreak rewards as a part of the chaotic nature of battles, core gamers are instead reminded of taking clip after clip to the face in older shooters, where all fights are determined on the ground level, and feel like they are the victim of cheap tactics.Its the same sort of thinking that leads to older people dismissing games as a new medium. We don't like it because its not what we are used to. To enjoy CoD, you have to accept it on its terms. Casual players can do that with ease, and most core gamers can with various degrees of difficulty. But the most entrenched can't, and this could be seen as either stubbornness or personal taste.

Also, Call of Duty has a bad community because its so popular. It's inevitable. Most games are fine, but the bad experiences are more memorable. But that is a drop in the bucket. Other games have there trolls, if perhaps less blatent. Community is certainly a complaint, but really, I suspect that it is a complaint that gets tacked on after a person decides that they don't like the rest of the game.

Honestly I think a better question is why CoD gets so much love.

Think about it. consistently some of the best selling games as well as the most pirated games. Yet there has been essentially nothing different about the last 4-5 installments and narrative is a 5-10 hour non event.

Seriously, there is nothing to justify having this much love and affection for a property that has sold millions at full price multiple times for just rehashing their product.

It's mostly popularity.

Because of its fans.

Very young, immature fan base. I teach in a middle school and the instant my students find out I'm a gamer, the immediate question is, "Do you play Call of Duty?". CoD games are the one game they all seem to have.

I hate the fans. When CoD fans ask me if I've got it and I say 'No' I may as well have farted in their mouth.

I then get a 15 minute lecture in how playing anything else makes me a loser. If a game has story it's for 'pussies' and that I need to go and buy it, even though it's the same as the last.

Also it's making everyone aspire to be CoD. No-one will do what Saints Row did and try to make a game that's similar but totally different. You just get Battlefield 'totally not MW3'

I think people just need to chill out. Some people like CoD, some people don't. That doesn't mean people should insult the game or the fans. Hatred toward any game, fanbase, musician, book, movie, etc. all sounds the same to me. Just because you don't like and you don't understand why other people like it, doesn't mean you need to hate it. Don't play it. Don't listen to it. Don't read it. Don't watch it. Calm. The fuck. Down. I understand the frustration with the business side of things, but that's not the game's fault, is it? People like it, so the publishers are taking advantage of that. It happens. Please tell me if I'm wrong because I don't understand it either.

Captcha: geez louise

I don't think Call of Cuty is one of the best games, but they're damn good. They have tight controls, wonderful graphics/framerate, and the single player mode is entertaining.

Multiplayer is average for me, but certaintly not bad.

What I would like to see is a survival horror game which utilizes the Call of Duty engine. The dark/stormy levels of the Modern Warfare series were always my favorite parts. A horror game would have tremendous potential.

I hate Call of Duty simply because the series is the poster child of everything about current gaming that I despise. That pretty much sums it up

I played quite a bit of Black Ops awhile back but honestly I still hate CoD and it's mostly the community. It's not even the screaming 12 year olds, cause they really seem to be the minority. It's just the all around douchebaggery of a large portion of the fan base. They throw around more racial slurs than a clan meeting and try to act as macho as possible as to not seem 'gay' or whatever these crazy teens are saying now. They rage when they lose and just bitch and call people hackers because they take the game way too seriously.

And please stop with it being innovative. I've played since CoD4 and nothing has changed. I don't really mind because its whatever for me, if it works it works. But don't lie to yourself that it's changing vastly every year, cause it's not.

Grey Day for Elcia:

TheKasp:
Ehm, the Twilight movies are bad

Aaannnddd you lost every single ounce of credibility you could have had. You don't get to decide what is good or bad for other people. Sorry. Sit down, get off your pedestal, and stop trying to act like art isn't subjective.

Nonsense. He even went so far as to present evidence supporting his opinion - are you denying him his opinion? You can't even present a counter-argument, and you denounce him with completely unnecessary vehemence. Most uncivilised. Perhaps you should adjust your opinion of your own comments' value before attacking that of others.

Grey Day for Elcia:
No one hates Call of Duty.

Lots of people dislike pointless threads.

This is the internet. There's ALWAYS someone. It's not hard to find people who are happy to hate on CoD.

HarryScull:
If it wasn't good it wouldn't be popular, i can see why some people may personally dislike the game but to call it a bad game is probably wrong

Flawed argument. After all, America re-elected George W Bush and he was hardly a 'good' president, people regularly eat too much bad food and give themselves health problems, and many people get themselves into debt by spending too much credit.

If so many people do these things, surely they must be 'good', right? Otherwise why would they do it? Ignorance, perhaps, or being miss-led. Perhaps they put their faith in things working out for the better if they just persist, perhaps they don't know of any other way, or perhaps they just do what their friends/family do and never think of questioning the status quo?

CoD is base in its appeal, simple in its gameplay, shallow in its message, it dominates the market through successful marketing to a particular demographic and its influence is felt in many unrelated games, normally to their detriment and simplification. It doesn't set out to do anything special, which is fine on its own, but as a yearly sequel promoting mass mediocracy it becomes a huge detriment to the progression of the game industry, and its profitability encourages the proliferation of its business model. Creativity shouldn't be the sole responsibility of indie studios, and CoD has become the symbol of big publisher stagnation.

It's simple, Modern Warfare 2 threw logical story telling and balanced multiplayer out the window and now it's a visual representation games being made to make money..

Wicky_42:

Grey Day for Elcia:

TheKasp:
Ehm, the Twilight movies are bad

Aaannnddd you lost every single ounce of credibility you could have had. You don't get to decide what is good or bad for other people. Sorry. Sit down, get off your pedestal, and stop trying to act like art isn't subjective.

Nonsense. He even went so far as to present evidence supporting his opinion - are you denying him his opinion? You can't even present a counter-argument, and you denounce him with completely unnecessary vehemence. Most uncivilised. Perhaps you should adjust your opinion of your own comments' value before attacking that of others.

Grey Day for Elcia:
No one hates Call of Duty.

Lots of people dislike pointless threads.

This is the internet. There's ALWAYS someone. It's not hard to find people who are happy to hate on CoD.

HarryScull:
If it wasn't good it wouldn't be popular, i can see why some people may personally dislike the game but to call it a bad game is probably wrong

Flawed argument. After all, America re-elected George W Bush and he was hardly a 'good' president, people regularly eat too much bad food and give themselves health problems, and many people get themselves into debt by spending too much credit.

If so many people do these things, surely they must be 'good', right? Otherwise why would they do it? Ignorance, perhaps, or being miss-led. Perhaps they put their faith in things working out for the better if they just persist, perhaps they don't know of any other way, or perhaps they just do what their friends/family do and never think of questioning the status quo?

CoD is base in its appeal, simple in its gameplay, shallow in its message, it dominates the market through successful marketing to a particular demographic and its influence is felt in many unrelated games, normally to their detriment and simplification. It doesn't set out to do anything special, which is fine on its own, but as a yearly sequel promoting mass mediocracy it becomes a huge detriment to the progression of the game industry, and its profitability encourages the proliferation of its business model. Creativity shouldn't be the sole responsibility of indie studios, and CoD has become the symbol of big publisher stagnation.

His arguments were invalid as art is subjective. I no more need to present evidence against that than I do to prove someone wrong if they were to claim yellow isn't a colour.

Also, no one hates Call of Duty. Some dislike, some think it's shit, but no one on Earth hates Call of Duty. They might use the word, but they fail to grasp it's meaning. Hate is for rapists and murderers. Hate is for Hitler. Hate is what you feel towards someone who breaks into your house and steals everything you own. No one hates a video game.

Grey Day for Elcia:
His arguments were invalid as art is subjective. I no more need to present evidence against that than I do to prove someone wrong if they were to claim yellow isn't a colour.

Also, no one hates Call of Duty. Some dislike, some think it's shit, but no one on Earth hates Call of Duty. They might use the word, but they fail to grasp it's meaning. Hate is for rapists and murderers. Hate is for Hitler. Hate is what you feel towards someone who breaks into your house and steals everything you own. No one hates a video game.

Hate is subjective, therefore your argument is invalid. I don't have to present "evidence" or "logic" to back this statement up because I say so. (See what I did there?)

Kahunaburger:

Grey Day for Elcia:
His arguments were invalid as art is subjective. I no more need to present evidence against that than I do to prove someone wrong if they were to claim yellow isn't a colour.

Also, no one hates Call of Duty. Some dislike, some think it's shit, but no one on Earth hates Call of Duty. They might use the word, but they fail to grasp it's meaning. Hate is for rapists and murderers. Hate is for Hitler. Hate is what you feel towards someone who breaks into your house and steals everything you own. No one hates a video game.

Hate is subjective, therefore your argument is invalid. I don't have to present "evidence" or "logic" to back this statement up because I say so. (See what I did there?)

People like to throw the word around, but no one actually hates much. Example: you don't hate the walk to school. You dislike it. You don't hate the president. You think he's an idiot. You don't hate that band. You think they suck.

It's one of those words people have used so much its meaning has become commonly misunderstood. Not unlike angst--angst means anxious and afraid, having nothing at all to do with emo teens.

Basically,
Every year there's another one and it's barely any different to the one released the year before; it's just a rehash. Yet it will still get hyped to the max, outsell all the other games whose respective developers spent much more time on in order to make them much longer lasting, more detailed, more immersive and more creative, despite having the same astronomical price tag (if not, a higher one).
Then the CoD fans are douchebags who refuse to play anything other than that or FIFA and vote for them en masse in user voted awards so they win just because of their popularity, and act like utter cunts to people who play other games and try to explain why they dislike CoD/Activision for milking it, or how popularity=/=quality. Then there's all the high review scores they get from game critics who've obviously been put up to it.
And the actual games are pretty crappy. The campaign mode is unforgivably short and I've played much better multiplayers on games which were primarily single player in the first place.
And I'm pretty sure CoD, or at least the mentality behind the franchise, led to the butchering of my beloved Halo series, turning it into what it is today.

Grey Day for Elcia:

Kahunaburger:

Grey Day for Elcia:
His arguments were invalid as art is subjective. I no more need to present evidence against that than I do to prove someone wrong if they were to claim yellow isn't a colour.

Also, no one hates Call of Duty. Some dislike, some think it's shit, but no one on Earth hates Call of Duty. They might use the word, but they fail to grasp it's meaning. Hate is for rapists and murderers. Hate is for Hitler. Hate is what you feel towards someone who breaks into your house and steals everything you own. No one hates a video game.

Hate is subjective, therefore your argument is invalid. I don't have to present "evidence" or "logic" to back this statement up because I say so. (See what I did there?)

People like to throw the word around, but no one actually hates much. Example: you don't hate the walk to school. You dislike it. You don't hate the president. You think he's an idiot. You don't hate that band. You think they suck.

It's one of those words people have used so much its meaning has become commonly misunderstood. Not unlike angst--angst means anxious and afraid, having nothing at all to do with emo teens.

Hate and angst are subjective, therefore your argument is invalid. I no more need to present evidence against than than I do to prove someone wrong if they were to claim yellow isn't a colour.

I think the games are fun. Not worth the price tag, but still fun as an action flick on a rainy day.

Kahunaburger:

Grey Day for Elcia:

Kahunaburger:

Hate is subjective, therefore your argument is invalid. I don't have to present "evidence" or "logic" to back this statement up because I say so. (See what I did there?)

People like to throw the word around, but no one actually hates much. Example: you don't hate the walk to school. You dislike it. You don't hate the president. You think he's an idiot. You don't hate that band. You think they suck.

It's one of those words people have used so much its meaning has become commonly misunderstood. Not unlike angst--angst means anxious and afraid, having nothing at all to do with emo teens.

Hate and angst are subjective, therefore your argument is invalid. I no more need to present evidence against than than I do to prove someone wrong if they were to claim yellow isn't a colour.

I guess we gotta agree to disagree.

Takes a deep breath and says something nice.. It's popular there for it's bad mentality. "Also if everyone else online hates so do I and I will not form any opinion by not playing the said game just because I watched a video review etc"

Listen I personally have nothing agaisnt call of duty I like guns, I also like multiplayer online games since I have a few decent friends to play with. However what I do not like is the extra 40-60 dollars they sneak for map packs that you will eventually have to buy if you want to keep playing the game online or you will be left out in the cold. The last CoD game i did this for was World at War and I still play that online with a few buddies but I haven't bought any new game in the franchise since then. This is my legit reason for not buying anymore CoD games.

Grey Day for Elcia:

Kahunaburger:

Grey Day for Elcia:
People like to throw the word around, but no one actually hates much. Example: you don't hate the walk to school. You dislike it. You don't hate the president. You think he's an idiot. You don't hate that band. You think they suck.

It's one of those words people have used so much its meaning has become commonly misunderstood. Not unlike angst--angst means anxious and afraid, having nothing at all to do with emo teens.

Hate and angst are subjective, therefore your argument is invalid. I no more need to present evidence against than than I do to prove someone wrong if they were to claim yellow isn't a colour.

I guess we gotta agree to disagree.

Disagreement is subjective, therefore your argument is invalid. I no more need to present evidence against it than I do to prove someone wrong if they were to claim yellow isn't a colour.