why does call of duty get so much hate?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

viranimus:
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.

they have a very large target audience and make games that suit that audience very well (like almost all high selling games from cod to angry birds), its not rocket surgery :)

also you dont need to get people to love your game for it to sell just to convince them that its worth 40, i personally love the cod games (for reasons i cant be bothered to explain, or defend from any flame warriors) but i'd say that 99% of the people who play them just like them, the odd day after school or weekend they play afew matches with some friends and enjoy themselves and thats the extent of their fandom

I personally liked MW2's multiplayer better than MW3's, but that was mostly because the vast majority of my time in MW2 was spent after Black Ops came out, so there were fewer douchebags around (they having moved to Black Ops), and I'd often run across the same people frequently, so it was almost like an impromptu private match.

The folks that played Search and Destroy more than TDM also, oddly, tended to be a little friendlier than the average CoD player. Lots of GLHF's, NS's and GG's pretty much every match, and while that's not really what you could call "civil," it was a much nicer place than anything I ever played in Black Ops or MW3.

And as far as it being generic, well, that's only partially CoD's fault. The fact that they keep making the same game over and over again definitely needs to stop, but the fact that it's hard to differentiate between the CoDs, MoHs and BFs isn't entirely CoD's fault. It's logical that businesses would see that Game X makes lots of money, and so decide to make a game very similar to Game X. Game X can't be blamed for its own success and the fact that people copy it, taking mechanics (like regenerating health and cover-based combat) or plot points (how many nuclear warheads is Russia missing now?). Long story short: repeated iterations are a flaw, knock offs and copies are just businesses being businesses. CoD is guilty of the first, but people do have the option to not buy those games.

Those were all shipped with a console or hand held.

BloatedGuppy:

Daystar Clarion:
I even enjoy the CoD titles, but I fucking hate that they're the bestselling titles of all time.

Modern Warfare 1 - 5-10 million across platforms
Modern Warfare 2 - 10-15 million across platforms
Black Ops - 15-20 million across platforms.

The Sims - 15 million (PC Only)

Tetris - 30 million (Gameboy)

Super Mario Bros. - 40 million (NES)

Wii Sports - 76 million (Wii)

Those are just a few cherry picked examples. I'm not even touching mobile phone games like Angry Birds because they're really in their own category. There's lots of games like Starcraft, WoW, Halo, etc that are all competitive with Call of Duty, to say nothing of the MANY Wii titles and Nintendo properties and Pokemon games that handily outstrip it.

So...sleep easy my friend. They're not even close to being the bestselling titles of all time.

They are all shipped with a console. But sims You are counting the entire franchise

Steven Gaines:
They are all shipped with a console. But sims You are counting the entire franchise

No, I was already corrected on the "games shipping with consoles" front.

Sims though, that is NOT the whole franchise, that's just the first one. Sims is one of if not the best-selling PC game of all time.

zombieshark6666:
Because it's a black hole of money, development time, attention, money, advertisement, time, innovation, progress, money, time, etc.

From an economic standpoint, hating a product because people in the private sector and consumers spend money on it is kind of backward. The black hole metaphor is also wrong. If one person makes money, they spend it (or invest it, which is also good, but this isn't Econ 101), and someone else makes money. Eventually, everyone gets paid. Just like Starbucks, COD meets a demand. It makes less than no sense to criticize the devs for meeting it.

You say COD is a waste of innovation- what would you prefer they work on? Curing cancer? They're hardly qualified... but they know shooters. Why should they not try to make their products better?

By definition, all recreational activities are a waste of time.

Personally, I like COD because the single-player is great, and while the multiplayer gets laggy, it's very well made and fun. As for the community, it's no worse than the internet in general. If you don't like talking to 12 year olds, turn off your mic, mute some people, and don't blame the game for the people who play it.

Every year people say they won't buy CoD and every year the games break sales records.

Some of you are liars.

It's a bog standard FPS that became massively popular, I'd say that the hate largely comes from stereotyping the fanbase. People view Cod players as chavs (or trailer trash, bla bla) or annoying children, the game is viewed as a generic shooter for idiots, so together the game has a bullseye painted over it for all the 'comic book guys' of the world.

Sort of like how everyone playing Halo is instantly viewed as having bad hygiene. I play all games, if they're decent.

Deathmageddon:

zombieshark6666:
Because it's a black hole of money, development time, attention, money, advertisement, time, innovation, progress, money, time, etc.

From an economic standpoint, hating a product because people in the private sector and consumers spend money on it is kind of backward. The black hole metaphor is also wrong. If one person makes money, they spend it (or invest it, which is also good, but this isn't Econ 101), and someone else makes money. Eventually, everyone gets paid. Just like Starbucks, COD meets a demand. It makes less than no sense to criticize the devs for meeting it.

You say COD is a waste of innovation- what would you prefer they work on? Curing cancer? They're hardly qualified... but they know shooters. Why should they not try to make their products better?

By definition, all recreational activities are a waste of time.

Personally, I like COD because the single-player is great, and while the multiplayer gets laggy, it's very well made and fun. As for the community, it's no worse than the internet in general. If you don't like talking to 12 year olds, turn off your mic, mute some people, and don't blame the game for the people who play it.

Every time someone pays over 100$/year for their privilege to play a shooting game, humanity loses one year of existence.

But serisously, a yearly remake takes so much effort and ad money away from games that might be interesting. I find it sad.

Call of duty is basically the same game resold. It's unbalanced and unfair, and once airsupport is up you're basically fucked. you can't walk around without getting spammed to death, everyone plays for himself, and teamwork is regarded as unimportant. There are too many ways to break flow, and it's just bad. Also the spawning is terrible, and you need to fire 200 rounds into someone before they're dead.

I hate call of duty. I can't finish one round happy. someone always spawns too close and fuck me over in a way I couldn't avoid. Or I get screwed by explosives, or snipers, and I am always mad when I quit. I don't mind losing usually, but every loss in a CoD game makes me blurt out verbal sewage. Every win makes me overly smug, which impairs my thinking. I can't play without hating myself and the game afterwards.

So there.

HarryScull:
this is something i do not understand, people dislike a whole host of games but none get as much negative attention thrown at it as call of duty, and i was wondering why? i personally like call of duty, but can see why some people might not like it and many people bring up valid points but is it really worth thinking about it so much and hazing it so much more than other games, and why you cant make a thread on it without 1/2 the comments being "i hate call of duty!" when if a thread pops about about a different unpopular game (for example fifa) most people just ignore it

i personally think its basically because the game is popular/successful and that through a combination of that and some evil business strategies it makes a huge amount of money but i was wondering what the escapist's think?

off topic i'd like to clear up some misconceptions that particularly annoy me.
1. call of duty isnt innovative: i can see why people think this, but it is untrue, as someone who has played call of duty competitively i can tell you that although it keeps the same base mechanics from each game but other than that is vastly different (like a good squeal should be) in terms of single player its often a case of SSDD but that is not what most people buy/play it for and judging black ops 2 on its single player is like judging mass effect 3 on its online.

2. most call of duty players are 12 year old douchebags: again from playing competitively most call of duty players are 16-18 and a regular bunch of people, the odd troll or 12 year old get in but pointing at them and using it as the stereotype for the cod community is like claiming that gamers in general are basement dwellers

Its the fans everyone hates, I understand that not all CoD players are bad people and like you said most are normal.
There are twelve year olds and trolls who play it yes, but generally in Britain at least these games seem to be catering to a very distinct social group CHAVS (British for scum). Basically it seems only one type of person plays these games and they generally divide their time between loitering/smoking/vodka and prison, and the rest of the time they play call of duty.

Which is sad because this means in my school CoD is generally associated with being a Chav, so therefore few of my friends have played it. I have not played it and I dont think I will it just isn't "fantasy" enough for me.

So yeah basically it is the fans that give this game a bad reputation.

Because COD is popular. We are nerds. And nerds hate on popular things...

You do the math.

I'm sorry, but anybody arguing that COD is innovative is laughably off the mark. Nothing changes from game to game. they add maybe 2 new mechanics each time round, release it with the same models, textures and engine and call it a new game. the equivalent would be if they released far cry 3 in the same setting with the same graphics and engine, same environments, same weapons, same missions but OMFG YOU CAN THROW THE MACHETE NOW and called it a new game.

By itself, this wouldn't irritate me too much. each to his own and all that. But it's the fact that COD has become this ambassador for gaming, this standard, that pisses me off. essentially, one of the more anodine and boring series is being branded as the target, because of enormous hordes of people buying the games. this is why modern gaming is such a shitpile; everyone is trying to copy COD by setting everything in gray-brown cities in the middle east and having a spec ops team with names like 'ghost' and 'shadow' and shit like that. I think COD represents the death of video games, and i hope they kill the damn thing soon.

/rant.

HarryScull:
off topic i'd like to clear up some misconceptions that particularly annoy me.
1. call of duty isnt innovative: i can see why people think this, but it is untrue, as someone who has played call of duty competitively i can tell you that although it keeps the same base mechanics from each game but other than that is vastly different (like a good squeal should be) in terms of single player its often a case of SSDD but that is not what most people buy/play it for and judging black ops 2 on its single player is like judging mass effect 3 on its online.

I love how brought this up, and yet didn't even make the slightest attempt at disproving the claim. You're basically saying...

HarryScull:
No, it isn't, 'cause I said so!

It is the same thing over and over again, just with varying settings from time-to-time. In other words, $60 map packs. Not to mention how they take themselves so seriously, and, yet, pull things like regenerating health and, sometimes, some really awful plotholes. Modern Warfare 3 really comes to mind. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/5006-Call-of-Duty-Modern-Warfare-3

Also, Black Ops 2 is currently being judged for it's single-player because that's all they've been showing right now. On top of that, Treyarch is focusing a lot more on the single-player to this game, anyway. Haven't you noticed?
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117057-All-You-Need-to-Know-About-Black-Ops-II
You don't just go out and hire Batman Begins writer and The Dark Knight story-crafter David Goyer, if the single-player story isn't going to mean that much to you in the game you're developing. And, as a matter of fact, plenty of skeptics (as in, people who hate Call of Duty) are actually saying that this installment looks intriguing.

Your significant lack of research, made up for with random guesses, inability to type proper sentences, referring to the core subject matter as "off topic", and poor logic, notably with avoiding the question, do not at all help your case in any way. In fact, if anything, it only ends up making yourself appear more foolish and the Call of Duty brand, as well. I doubt this is what you would want. But, this is exactly what your words are spelling out to everyone. Do research and use logic. They will get you far.

they're sexist. name one female character in any of the games

Because COD is the number 1 example of everything that is wrong with game development. "LETS MAKE THE SAME GAME OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND OCCASIONALLY THROW IN A NEW GUN." What happened to innovation? Cant have any new ideas oh no, that way madness lies.

I don't care for them because it's just the same thing over and over again... not that it keeps them from selling well...

Lugbzurg:

HarryScull:
off topic i'd like to clear up some misconceptions that particularly annoy me.
1. call of duty isnt innovative: i can see why people think this, but it is untrue, as someone who has played call of duty competitively i can tell you that although it keeps the same base mechanics from each game but other than that is vastly different (like a good squeal should be) in terms of single player its often a case of SSDD but that is not what most people buy/play it for and judging black ops 2 on its single player is like judging mass effect 3 on its online.

I love how brought this up, and yet didn't even make the slightest attempt at disproving the claim. You're basically saying...

HarryScull:
No, it isn't, 'cause I said so!

??? i didnt spend my time proving cod doesnt innovate because
1. it wasnt even the main part of my post
2. 99.9% of people ive met who play it agree that it is, i really didnt expect so many people saying it isnt
3. arguing that black ops is the same as mw2 is like arguing that american football is the same as rugby, sure its on the same field and they do similar things but they are 2 very different sports
4. look at the comments ive made defending it, already then call me out, ive had this debate with 1 person already and really can't be bothered to fight another flame warrior

i even missed of some pretty big things here like the cod point system, theater mode, file sharing and stat tracking.

arguing whether or not COD innovates on the escapist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how many clever moves i make the pigeon will just knock the board over and strut around like its won

zombieshark6666:

Deathmageddon:

zombieshark6666:
Because it's a black hole of money, development time, attention, money, advertisement, time, innovation, progress, money, time, etc.

From an economic standpoint, hating a product because people in the private sector and consumers spend money on it is kind of backward. The black hole metaphor is also wrong. If one person makes money, they spend it (or invest it, which is also good, but this isn't Econ 101), and someone else makes money. Eventually, everyone gets paid. Just like Starbucks, COD meets a demand. It makes less than no sense to criticize the devs for meeting it.

You say COD is a waste of innovation- what would you prefer they work on? Curing cancer? They're hardly qualified... but they know shooters. Why should they not try to make their products better?

By definition, all recreational activities are a waste of time.

Personally, I like COD because the single-player is great, and while the multiplayer gets laggy, it's very well made and fun. As for the community, it's no worse than the internet in general. If you don't like talking to 12 year olds, turn off your mic, mute some people, and don't blame the game for the people who play it.

Every time someone pays over 100$/year for their privilege to play a shooting game, humanity loses one year of existence.

But serisously, a yearly remake takes so much effort and ad money away from games that might be interesting. I find it sad.

Gotta agree there. Activision is definitely cranking out games way too often.

$100/year isn't even that bad- a cable (or internet) subscription costs more than that. I'll take COD over Glee any day.

HarryScull:

arguing whether or not COD innovates on the escapist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how many clever moves i make the pigeon will just knock the board over and strut around like its won

I think that this analogy is essentially correct. Although you appear to be confused about which participant in this conversation is the pigeon.

TheFederation:
they're sexist. name one female character in any of the games

I think there were probably some women in that airport I shot up in MW2. Do the mother and daughter who get blown up by the van bomb in MW3 count...?

Anywho... on topic...

I don't hate Call of Duty. I think I'm just fatigued by it. They may change things up like map design and weaponry from title to title, but each title at its core ends up feeling pretty much the same. Gameplay really doesn't vary a whole lot... and even the stuff that changes doesn't really change things very much (how is a MW2 dual G18 user any different than a MW3 dual FMG-9 user besides weapon skins?).

If we got a new CoD game every two or three years instead of the series being the apparent Madden of shooters, I probably wouldn't feel so fatigued by them. It just isn't worth it to me anymore to drop $60 on a game that'll end up feeling exactly the same to me as the one I paid $60 for the previous year, and the one I paid $60 for the year before that, and so on. I can get the same sort of experience with Counter-Strike for a fraction of the cost, and just swap out my weapon skins once per year and download some new maps from time to time. Not that I'd do that... because at this point, I think my fatigue has spread to the entire modern "realistic" FPS genre.

It's like modern FPS fad is the new WWII FPS.

Kahunaburger:

HarryScull:

arguing whether or not COD innovates on the escapist is like playing chess with a pigeon. It doesn't matter how many clever moves i make the pigeon will just knock the board over and strut around like its won

I think that this analogy is essentially correct. Although you appear to be confused about which participant in this conversation is the pigeon.

i can give a whole list of ways in which call of duty innovates to which the escapist responds
"NONE OF THOSE COUNT!!!"

if that doesn't make the escapist the pigeon in this analogy i dont know what does

Ill bite.

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)

1. See my comment about "New guns"
2. What?
3. Again. What? Controlling movement is innovative?
4. MW3 has a carbon copy of a cod 4 level.
5. Not just team deathmatch but mega team deathmatch?
6. a glorified betting system is not innovative.
7. Cod was the first series to use a Flak jacket?
8. Balance is innovation?
9. This is innovation?
10. No other game has customisation?
11. Its not even worth mentioning.

So basicly none of your points are innovative in any way, shape or form.

Kahunaburger:

Grey Day for Elcia:

Kahunaburger:

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.

Brilliantly handled. I wish I thought of that when he was saying that crap to me.

A lot of people here think they have the world figured out and love to generalise everyone. Frankly, it's just a really bad habbit and makes for poor disucssion.

i dont like COD because its making kids(who shouldn't even be playing an M rated game to begin with) and teens assholes in the gaming society, apparently COD is a "Game"and every other video game isnt. that doesn't make any sense! a board game is a game, Hide and go Seek is a game, video games are defiantly games including COD * half rage * its so annoying. honestly wtf

Gorilla Gunk:
Every year people say they won't buy CoD and every year the games break sales records.

Some of you are liars.

I guess it's possible, but I'd still say you are assuming too much. It's not like every COD player is on The Escapist now. The internet and the world does expand way beyond from here, and even then, maybe not every COD player uses a computer.

Tiswas:
I found this on another forum but it pretty much sets the example for every single CoD fan I've met.

"man I fucking hate all these nintendo rehashes bro its the same fukken game over and over again

yeah I know dude I saved this dumb bitch before, I sang on that, like, flute fucker before.

haha yeah man and what about fukken pokemon these days, I mean, ANOTHER ONE? hahaha

but hey dude what about that new call of duty

oh bro that looks sick as shit man, gonna buy that one yeah"

my family's "gaming" side in a nutshell

Adultratedhydra:
Ill bite.

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)

1. See my comment about "New guns"
2. What?
3. Again. What? Controlling movement is innovative?
4. MW3 has a carbon copy of a cod 4 level.
5. Not just team deathmatch but mega team deathmatch?
6. a glorified betting system is not innovative.
7. Cod was the first series to use a Flak jacket?
8. Balance is innovation?
9. This is innovation?
10. No other game has customisation?
11. Its not even worth mentioning.

So basicly none of your points are innovative in any way, shape or form.

1. new guns implies a re-skin changing weapon balance vastly changes the game
2. learn to play cod well and you will understand
3. see 2.
4. mw3 isnt very innovative (besides adding shit) and was a shit call of duty but that wasnt the question, i was comparing mw2 to Blops
5. yes, it added afew new game types and changed how afew work, again play the game to a decnt level and you will understand this
6. it adds 3 new game modes that are completely off the wall and fun, as well as adding a element of suspense and importance onto a pub match in which most people dont care about winning or losing
7. black ops introduced flak jacket which completely changed objective games by negating spawn nades and nade spots, forcing the defenders to be much more agrresive and push CQC around the objective, couple this with placing the objectives in harder to defend area's and pushing the defenders spawn back and it hugely changes objective games (again play the game to a decent level and this will become apparent
8.killstreaks not staking was a big change, instead of getting a 5 killstreak then building off it to win the game you earn the killstreaks, putting much more of an emphases on gunplay and forcing players to choose a range of killstreaks from a 3-4-5 to a 8-9-11
9. yes, it changes who plays the game and how the game works by widening the skill gap between a good and bad player
10. call of duty did it differently to any other game before it (that i am aware of) by letting you have a fully customization emblem and show it of by putting it on your gun
11. true
12. you didnt even bother to answer my other points that i added as an after thought

note: the point were i say things along the line of "a good player understands this" sounds condescending but to be good at call of duty (and most FPS games) you have to understand things like the spawn system, traffic pattern's, spawn nades/nade spots, how to defend/defend an objective effectively (to the level where you know how to attack/defend every obkective on every map in a variety of situations and many others). the ones mentioned above are pretty much what separates a good and bad player, and in your comment you openly display ignorance on these topics so to someone who shows that they don't understand the game yes it is SSDD but to good players and competitive players mw2 and blops are about as different as rugby and football, sure the're both played on a field and the balls look the same but when you start playing you realize the're hugely different games

I thought the Halo community were bad, they look like saints compared to the utter bellends that populate the COD servers.

I was a fan of the Call of Duty series until they started milking the franchise.
The series was innovative when it started, up until COD 4.
Then things went to shit.
They released what is essentially the same game 3 years in a row thereafter, with minor differences.
You say that "as a competitive player" you see the games as being "vastly different."
What you should explain is how they are different?
How has the game changed substantially since call of duty 4?

I have no real problem with CoD really. Yeah, it's definitely got its negatives but it also has a lot of positives.

No, what I hate is that every developer and their grandma is trying to copy the same formula for the multiplayer of their games.

A bit OT: What I also hate is people comparing every iron sight shooter to CoD.

HarryScull:
i personally think its basically because the game is popular/successful and that through a combination of that and some evil business strategies it makes a huge amount of money but i was wondering what the escapist's think?

off topic i'd like to clear up some misconceptions that particularly annoy me.
1. call of duty isnt innovative: i can see why people think this, but it is untrue, as someone who has played call of duty competitively i can tell you that although it keeps the same base mechanics from each game but other than that is vastly different (like a good squeal should be) in terms of single player its often a case of SSDD but that is not what most people buy/play it for and judging black ops 2 on its single player is like judging mass effect 3 on its online.

2. most call of duty players are 12 year old douchebags: again from playing competitively most call of duty players are 16-18 and a regular bunch of people, the odd troll or 12 year old get in but pointing at them and using it as the stereotype for the cod community is like claiming that gamers in general are basement dwellers

I would agree. Most gamers on the internet turn into hipsters, and the business practices of Activision are rather irritating.

Also, there is innovation in CoD games, but not enough for most people. A shooter is a shooter, and there are only so many ways to vary that, but CoD games are very similar to each other.
The reason that I have started to dislike CoD games is that there are too many of them. They are milking them too far, like Nintendo did with Mario, and most recently, Zelda.

i hate the interpretation that because i am 14 i am a squeaky little bitch that cant be tactical or reason. and COD has the largest population of elitist assholes [and 12 yr olds alike] and that because my voice isnt the deepest that i automatically deserve to be made fun of. i have had people tell me this directly. the game itself is fun, its just become what halo used to be: a haven for assholes.

Its ruining innovation and damaging gaming if you keep buying them like the drooling mongoloid sheep you are your ruining gaming.

I don't like to be reminded of real world wars.

Ego Shooter bore me.

I don't play competitive online shooter. Lacks the satisfaction of playing CS in a room with 8 PCs with friends.

Actually, I'm mostly indifferent. But I don't think there's anything wrong with liking the CoD games. I just find it annoying that the success of those brown shooters led to an industry full of clones and imitations instead of clones and imitations of games I like.

They have done nothing actually new since the original modern warfare. They represent the stagnation of an entire genre.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked