Call of Duty has become like the Madden and NHL games. They may as well skip naming them and just go with Call of Duty: 2013. Of course, that opens the market up to more spinoffs if one particular year is more popular. CoD:2013:2 anyone?
I don't really get angry at CoD, it's a mediocre series that doesn't appeal to me, so I don't play it. And that's fine. What I do feel is pity for those folks who feel obligated to buy the next one. I mean, is it for the story? I doubt it. Are there really that many changes made that every sequel must be bought? You've been tricked, CoD fans, by a cruel, cruel, joke.
So... does CoD deserve the hate? Not really. It doesn't deserve any energy from those people who already don't like the games because it's getting a surplus from those who do. My advice is just let the people who like them buy the games and just don't bother.
I've always seen it as a bit of MovieBob syndrome. You know that group of guys that picked on you in high school and never let you hang out with them? They like CoD. You know what else? CoD makes a ton of money because a lot of people like it. It thus follows that CoD is something you should hate.
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?
it depends how much you play and how well you understand the game, if you play on a competitive level they are very different but if you play once a week or less (like i suspect most people on this site do, after reading how little they understand even the basics of call of duty like the spawn system) you will find it hard to tell them apart (except for wager matches and zombies)
ive answered some peoples questions on this already and i would recommend looking at those if your genuinely interested
HarryScull: it depends how much you play and how well you understand the game, if you play on a competitive level they are very different but if you play once a week or less (like i suspect most people on this site do, after reading how little they understand even the basics of call of duty like the spawn system) you will find it hard to tell them apart (except for wager matches and zombies)
ive answered some peoples questions on this already and i would recommend looking at those if your genuinely interested
Since you asked, I read through some of your posts and it turned out to be a tragic waste of time. Your arguments mostly amount to "play the game more! you'll understand!" but you offer no substance.
HarryScull: it depends how much you play and how well you understand the game, if you play on a competitive level they are very different but if you play once a week or less (like i suspect most people on this site do, after reading how little they understand even the basics of call of duty like the spawn system) you will find it hard to tell them apart (except for wager matches and zombies)
This kind of ridiculous argument isn't going to convince anyone, and for a good reason. It's not a justification. It's a fanboy's desperate defense of his favorite series.
When we say nothing has changed, you simply accuse all critics of "not understanding the depth and not playing on a competitive level." What?
And the only points with substance you can offer are balance changes that should have been patched in, but infinity ward had their head too far up their ass to be bothered, like limiting killstreak stacking. I'm not going to pay $60 for a game just so I can have the killstreaks no longer stack. That's just stupid.
Just to prove my point, let me showcase some of your brilliant arguments.
HarryScull: 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 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)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
1. not even an argument 2. "EVERYONE AGREES WITH ME!" Not an argument. Not even logically valid 3. Nonsensical analogy. The comparison would be valid if rugby was the exact same as football, except with a different colored ball that weighs half a pound more (for balance reasons) and a slightly different scoring system. Which of course, isn't true. 4. Not an argument
1. Slight statistical differences in weapon balance don't constitute a sequel. 2. The difference the "new" spawn system has is negligible and pretty shitty anyways. There are endless cases of people getting spawn trapped and completely raped by the other team in BO. Not exactly an improvement over MW2 3. What? What is this I don't even 4. New maps? You paid $60 for new maps? 5. New game types? You are willing to pay $60 for a new game type? That's more along the lines of DLC 6. Wager matches are a new game type. Rehash of 5. 7. Statistical differences in explosive damage are a game changer? And you paid $60 for it? 8. I addressed this point already 9. HOW was it noob friendly? Declarative statements don't help your case 10. Custom emblems. $60 Dollars. 11. This is an invalid analogy because you're making shitty, shitty points. In this case the pigeon appears to be the better player.
Hate to be so blunt, but nonsensical arguments get on my nerves.
1. the argument isnt whether or not you think the changes are good or bad it is did changes happen which you openly admit did, how can you admit that the game has changed but also say that it doesnt innovate
2. its a very valid point that to people who dont play the game much (like people who dont like it for example) that the games are SSDD but the more you play the more you will notice the subtle difference's, the same is true for every popular FPS sires ive played so far, and its a relevant point to bring up when i try and talk about things as simple as the spawn system or traffic pattern being different and people saying "spawns, that's bullshit, there not important, they didnt change, they dont change jack e.c.t" when its a well known fact among the cod community (certainly the competitive side) that stuff like that makes a huge difference (this also includes flak jacket, if you dont even understand or accept how the create a class and statistics effects the game its almost pointless debating with you, see the pigeon analogy)
3. ive defended the same counter argument's you have bought up in other comments before
4. before this thread gets any more derailed the question was "why does call of duty get so much hate" not "why do you personally hate call of duty, flame me please! im a good punching bag!"
I hate them because I don't find them entertaining. I don't even hate them, just mildly dislike. I do, however, hate that they've almost singlehandedly made it so every game wants to be a generic first person shooter against Russia with brown and gray color everywhere. And that's not really even their fault, they were just making games.
1. it wasnt even the main part of my post Did I say that? No, it was a major part of your post that you'd put in bold print. 2. 99.9% of people ive met who play it agree that it is, i really didnt expect so many people saying it isnt Wow, other people just like you that agree with you! You must be so special! 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 Seriously? Could point out, like, any point in time I ever made a statement like this? 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 *mega facepalm* Then why would you make an entire thread about it? What did you think was going to happen? That "99.9%" of the people here would just agree with you? Also, no one here has ever flamed. at all.
1. new guns/gun balance (more powerful SMG's/assult rifles less powerful shotguns/snipers) Wheee! Balance! This is something we'd pretty much perfected a couple decades or so ago! Also, it's such a minor asset. 2. the spawn system Umm... Yay? 3. the traffic pattern Point? 4. whole new maps This is almost all that Call of Duty is. This is a given. It's been this way since the 80s! For you to actually bother listing this as a feature just shows off more of how desperate this series really is. Not to mention how it isn't entirely true, since they keep clogging overpriced copies of older maps onto later games. 5. whole new game types More ways to kill stuff in slight variations. What fun! 6. wager matches What a fantastic idea! Let's take pointless risks and watch what happens! 7. flack jacket changed objective games hugely Seriously? The jacket? 8. killstreaks were no longer stackable This about on par with "You can make your character purple". 9. it was allot less noob friendly "Allot"? As in "Distribute"? Or, do you mean "a lot"? It's hard to take you seriously when you're making so many bad spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc. errors so many times. 10. it added a huge amount of customization on the form of your weapon and emblem Yay! My own personal logo! This changes the game so much! 11. for what its worth it had zombies (although cod 5 had zombies) Zombies = innovation? Sorry, no. Besides, the "Nazi Zombie" concept is so messed up in so many ways.
I've made several points here, but, I think Eternal Taros' were even better and more valid.
Eternal Taros: 1. not even an argument 2. "EVERYONE AGREES WITH ME!" Not an argument. Not even logically valid 3. Nonsensical analogy. The comparison would be valid if rugby was the exact same as football, except with a different colored ball that weighs half a pound more (for balance reasons) and a slightly different scoring system. Which of course, isn't true. 4. Not an argument
1. Slight statistical differences in weapon balance don't constitute a sequel. 2. The difference the "new" spawn system has is negligible and pretty shitty anyways. There are endless cases of people getting spawn trapped and completely raped by the other team in BO. Not exactly an improvement over MW2 3. What? What is this I don't even 4. New maps? You paid $60 for new maps? 5. New game types? You are willing to pay $60 for a new game type? That's more along the lines of DLC 6. Wager matches are a new game type. Rehash of 5. 7. Statistical differences in explosive damage are a game changer? And you paid $60 for it? 8. I addressed this point already 9. HOW was it noob friendly? Declarative statements don't help your case 10. Custom emblems. $60 Dollars. 11. This is an invalid analogy because you're making shitty, shitty points. In this case the pigeon appears to be the better player.
Hate to be so blunt, but nonsensical arguments get on my nerves.
1. the argument isnt whether or not you think the changes are good or bad it is did changes happen which you openly admit did, how can you admit that the game has changed but also say that it doesnt innovate
2. its a very valid point that to people who dont play the game much (like people who dont like it for example) that the games are SSDD but the more you play the more you will notice the subtle difference's, the same is true for every popular FPS sires ive played so far, and its a relevant point to bring up when i try and talk about things as simple as the spawn system or traffic pattern being different and people saying "spawns, that's bullshit, there not important, they didnt change, they dont change jack e.c.t" when its a well known fact among the cod community (certainly the competitive side) that stuff like that makes a huge difference (this also includes flak jacket, if you dont even understand or accept how the create a class and statistics effects the game its almost pointless debating with you, see the pigeon analogy)
3. ive defended the same counter argument's you have bought up in other comments before
4. before this thread gets any more derailed the question was "why does call of duty get so much hate" not "why do you personally hate call of duty, flame me please! im a good punching bag!"
1. I never talked about whether the changes are good or bad. I'm saying that they lack substance. A patch changes things too. Everything you mentioned can be changed and often are changed in patches and DLC in other games in the industry. Are you willing to pay $60 dollars for a patch or for DLC?
2. If no one notices the difference it doesn't matter. If I make a game and then make a sequel that is extremely similar in mechanics and gameplay but has slight changes in the way that it's coded, you can't say I "innovated" I'm not saying these subtle changes shouldn't exist. I'm saying maybe it's just you. If you want to see something badly enough, you'll see it. No doubt it effects the game. I'm not saying that there is no effect. It's just not enough to constitute a sequel. I'm not sure why you can't grasp this simple concept. Again. Your primary contention boils down to "It's too deep for you to understand"
3. Your counter-arguments are terrible and don't address the issues.
4. It's not about my hate for call of duty. On it's own merits it's a fairly good series. What I hate is the fact that they've allowed it to stagnate, instead of innovating like they used to. You asked why people hate it and then you try to shoot down their informative posts by saying "You just don't understand!" Of course I'm going to respond to that. No one is derailing the thread.
Let me show you just how fucking small the changes are by comparing a directly competing title, Battlefield 3. It's the most easily available comparison.
Changes from BC2 to BF3 New vehicles. Not only new vehicles but an entirely new class of vehicles: jets. Vehicles that return are substantially changed. Helicopters have TV guided missiles, commander seats on tanks, guided ammunition for tanks, anti air helicopter missiles, etc.. etc.. Classes are changed. Assault and Support are now different from their previous incarnations in terms of carriable equipment. Deployable bipods. New attachments. Foregrip, heavy barrel, flash suppressor, etc... New equipment. Mortars, soflams, claymores, MAVS etc... Modified spawning system. Entirely new engine. Suppression system.
The list goes on and on. This is on top of everything that call of duty changed. As you can see, this is innovation and improvement. It's by no means a perfect game, but it always tries to improve.
Now, the reason I hate call of duty personally is because it's fucking the entire shooter market up. Crysis 1 was an amazing game. Crysis 2 ended up being Call of Duty: Nanosuit Edition. I bought Crysis 2 because I wanted to play crysis, not call of duty with invisibility suits. This laziness and self assured lack of innovation destroys the industry, and the fact that people like you buy it worsens the issue and encourages them more.
Lugbzurg: 1. it wasnt even the main part of my post Did I say that? No, it was a major part of your post that you'd put in bold print. 2. 99.9% of people ive met who play it agree that it is, i really didnt expect so many people saying it isnt Wow, other people just like you that agree with you! You must be so special! 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 Seriously? Could point out, like, any point in time I ever made a statement like this? 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 *mega facepalm* Then why would you make an entire thread about it? What did you think was going to happen? That "99.9%" of the people here would just agree with you? Also, no one here has ever flamed. at all.
1. new guns/gun balance (more powerful SMG's/assult rifles less powerful shotguns/snipers) Wheee! Balance! This is something we'd pretty much perfected a couple decades or so ago! Also, it's such a minor asset. 2. the spawn system Umm... Yay? 3. the traffic pattern Point? 4. whole new maps This is almost all that Call of Duty is. This is a given. It's been this way since the 80s! For you to actually bother listing this as a feature just shows off more of how desperate this series really is. Not to mention how it isn't entirely true, since they keep clogging overpriced copies of older maps onto later games. 5. whole new game types More ways to kill stuff in slight variations. What fun! 6. wager matches What a fantastic idea! Let's take pointless risks and watch what happens! 7. flack jacket changed objective games hugely Seriously? The jacket? 8. killstreaks were no longer stackable This about on par with "You can make your character purple". 9. it was allot less noob friendly "Allot"? As in "Distribute"? Or, do you mean "a lot"? It's hard to take you seriously when you're making so many bad spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc. errors so many times. 10. it added a huge amount of customization on the form of your weapon and emblem Yay! My own personal logo! This changes the game so much! 11. for what its worth it had zombies (although cod 5 had zombies) Zombies = innovation? Sorry, no. Besides, the "Nazi Zombie" concept is so messed up in so many ways.
1. it wasn't a major part of my post, i added a small off topic bit marked as off topic and said that i just wanted to clear up some misconceptions, the main part of my post was the question "why does cod get so much hate" 2. the question wasn't "do you like the changes made" it was "were changes made" which you just admitted that changes happen, whether they are good or worth Ł40 is up to personal choice
1. the argument isnt whether or not you think the changes are good or bad it is did changes happen which you openly admit did, how can you admit that the game has changed but also say that it doesnt innovate
2. its a very valid point that to people who dont play the game much (like people who dont like it for example) that the games are SSDD but the more you play the more you will notice the subtle difference's, the same is true for every popular FPS sires ive played so far, and its a relevant point to bring up when i try and talk about things as simple as the spawn system or traffic pattern being different and people saying "spawns, that's bullshit, there not important, they didnt change, they dont change jack e.c.t" when its a well known fact among the cod community (certainly the competitive side) that stuff like that makes a huge difference (this also includes flak jacket, if you dont even understand or accept how the create a class and statistics effects the game its almost pointless debating with you, see the pigeon analogy)
3. ive defended the same counter argument's you have bought up in other comments before
4. before this thread gets any more derailed the question was "why does call of duty get so much hate" not "why do you personally hate call of duty, flame me please! im a good punching bag!"
2. If no one notices the difference it doesn't matter. If I make a game and then make a sequel that is extremely similar in mechanics and gameplay but has slight changes in the way that it's coded, you can't say I "innovated" I'm not saying these subtle changes shouldn't exist. I'm saying maybe it's just you. If you want to see something badly enough, you'll see it. No doubt it effects the game. I'm not saying that there is no effect. It's just not enough to constitute a sequel. I'm not sure why you can't grasp this simple concept. Again. Your primary contention boils down to "It's too deep for you to understand"
ok the rest of the post i can let slide but this is ridiculous
1. people do notice the changes, just because you dont it doesn't mean that other people do not 2. whether or not the changes merit a sequel is up to you, i personally do (and apparently allot of other people do), you dont, cant we just agree to disagree on that because it's really tiresome to argue on that 3. thats because the things that are "to deep for you" are the fucking basics!, its like me saying oh i hate pokemon wait you can catch pokemon?, nah im still not interested, that probably isnt important because i haven't done it yet, this game fucking sucks (this covers 3. as well)
/edit also thought id add, on the battlefield thing, its about the same level of change between the cod and battlefield games, i dont notice how much BF changes because i dont play it often, whereas in cod because i play it a lot i notice the changes more
HarryScull: ok the rest of the post i can let slide but this is ridiculous
1. people do notice the changes, just because you dont it doesn't mean that other people do not 2. whether or not the changes merit a sequel is up to you, i personally do (and apparently allot of other people do), you dont, cant we just agree to disagree on that because it's really tiresome to argue on that 3. thats because the things that are "to deep for you" are the fucking basics!, its like me saying oh i hate pokemon wait you can catch pokemon?, nah im still not interested, that probably isnt important because i haven't done it yet, this game fucking sucks (this covers 3. as well)
/edit also thought id add, on the battlefield thing, its about the same level of change between the cod and battlefield games, i dont notice how much BF changes because i dont play it often, whereas in cod because i play it a lot i notice the changes more
What changes? Changes in the spawn system? Changes in gun statistics? This is coming from someone with over 300 hours in MW2 and quite a few in BO as well. I notice the changes if I look REALLY hard. They are not significant. Most people I know don't notice the changes. At all. You see what you want to see.
If you think changing math values on a gun and new maps are enough to merit a sequel, i resent you and everyone like you. You are encouraging stagnation and destroying the industry by paying $60 dollars for glorified patches and DLC. Shame on you.
What is too deep for me? You still haven't explained what i'm failing to grasp here. There are subtle changes in code. Recoil statistics, damage values, damage reduction values from perks. That's all math. A lot of fucking patches do this. Not $60 dollar sequels. If you want to waste your fucking money it's none of my business and more power to you. The only reason I care enough to respond to your tragic posts is because people like you are fucking my favorite videogame developers and turning everything into call of duty clones. You know why? Because the shareholders and CEOs see this shit. They think "Look! This exact same formula is breaking records 3 years in a row! Let's replicate it!" In the corporate world you speak with your money, and people like you are speaking very, very poorly.
It epitomizes what has become wrong with gaming in general in terms of rewards and atmosphere. There does not need to be points and rock tracks playing every time I throw a grenade and hit something. I should not be able to dual wield shotguns and SMGs. The kill streaks are ridiculous.
The MAJOR problem I have with it is the lack of support. Once the next game comes out, often in less than a year, support disappears and the game is overrun with hackers. The fact that the same game keeps being repackaged for full price does not help either.
I giggled a bit when you put the words "competitive" and "Call of Duty" in the same sentence. To quote from the immortal words of TotalBiscuit: "Imagine your playing a competitive game of football, and the ball is magnetically attracted to the inside of the net. So all you have to do is kick the ball somewhere near the general direction of the net, and it will go in. This is competitive Call of Duty"
Because it's the same game every year with a fresh coat of paint. MW1 was a breath of fresh air but at that point on it's just the same copy and paste formula.
The word "innovation" is getting thrown around a lot here.
I'm not convinced the majority of the people using it actually understand its meaning in relation to the gaming industry.
Adding new weapon skins to a game isn't innovation. Innovation would be if you can do something with those guns that you couldn't do before in any other games. The first time an FPS offered alternate fire modes for guns - THAT was innovation. The first time an FPS used regenerating health - THAT was innovation. The first time an FPS let you hop into a vehicle and drive it around - THAT was innovation. Etc.
Every FPS released with those features afterward wouldn't be innovating anything. They'd be iterating it.
If a new Call of Duty game were to come out and you could hop into Humvees or Strykers or whatever in multiplayer and drive them around (actually controlling them, not rail-shooter-esque like the AC-130 killstreaks)... even though that would be new to Call of Duty, that feature itself isn't new to the genre, and as such, isn't innovation. It's iteration, because you're reiterating a previously established innovation.
2. as mentioned above, my experience with the call of duty community is that they are just normal people, the fans can be obnoxious but then again portal fans are obnoxious, heck 99.9% of fans are obnoxious regardless of what game/company they are a fan of and hating on a game over its fans seams like a shallow thing to do
Well, having played Modern Warfare 2, Bad Company 2, Team Fortress 2, and Tribes: Ascend quite a bit (each), I've gotta say that CoD by far had the most people throwing racial/homophobic slurs at each other, people hacking and/or accusing others of hacking, 12-year-olds screaming into their mics, and so on.
1. i accept that even though i personally do not like twilight it does not make twilight a bad movie and it doesn't mean that people who do like it are wrong and i think that thinking that way is very narrow minded
2. i will accept that call of duty has a larger population of annoying children than allot of other games however they remain a vocal minority and although they may lessen your (and my) enjoyment of the game i do not see how it makes the game itself a bad thing or make it a target to be hated on just because it has a relatively poor community
3. you didnt answer point 3 or 4 from my last comment :( please would you share your opinion on them?
No twilight is actually terribly written, horribly executed but loved by a whole lot of people for all the wrong reasons
When the writer of a work thinks her own product is a blight, when the actors working on a movie loathe their own parts.
That's when you know you're headed in the crapperwrapper direction.
The reason why so many people play cod is because it's a brand name. Owning Call of Duty(over other shooters) , Fifa/Madden Etc(over pro evo) or Halo(over other scifi shooters) is like drinking Coca cola (over pepsi) or drinking budweiser/heineken (over actual beer)
there's little kids that own every halo game, every cod game and every madden game, why ? because their parent sbuy it for them and the name is connected to the brand.
you see where the great divide is even in the COD community itself, there are people who fucking loathe blackops who love WaW and reverse. If you ask them why, nobody can really explain it.
Being a Triple A brand/franchise doesn't necesarily mean you're product is of great quality, it means you know marketing PR, and how to dominate a leading position
Because they took a series that provided a intense but authentic approach to WWII shooters, made a fantastic game set in modern day and then shat all over the series by appealing more to the college fratboy demographic than the actual fanbase. The series got progressively better and better until MW2, which was screwed over by terrible map design, overpowered killstreaks, and same-y weapon design. It's been crap ever since.
I don't think Wii Sports should count. It only technically sold that much because it was included with every Wii. Barely anybody would go buy Wii Sports on its own.
OT: People always blow things way out of proportion. It's just the nature of the internet to take any partial feelings of descent, and magnify them to a pretty ridiculous extent.
Its popular, so more so then just hating because its popular, everyone has an opinion on it. It huge exposer means lots of people have played it which means a large number won't like it. Then those who don't like it hate it more because they have to be exposed to it a lot. Also they make a new one every year, and other companies make a direct competitor every year, and you have to be exposed to all of those.
I don't like it and money is being invested in that sort of thing rather than things I like. Do I need more of a reason?[1]
[1] I don't hate CoD. I own MW1 and I have CoD 1 as well. I just don't think they're good enough to justify there being somewhere in the range of 12 games being made in one generation. Same reason I own NBA 2K8 and NBA 2k11. I don't need another one every year, but sometimes, if it's cheap, second hand I'll buy a roster update.
Because one of my favorite game series has went from something awesome *CoD, CoD4*, to a stagnate pile of shit, pumped out every year with a slightly new coat of paint and sold for $60. *MW2, BO, MW3, now BO2*
And people are stupid enough to buy it. . .you know, I don't even hate the game, I hate the fuckwits who are dumb enough to buy it again every year. Because they are encouraging more crap like this to be made.
And it drags down other companies, and good game series, because they try to hop on the bandwagon and ruin their own games in the process.
It's also somehow so popular, it becomes the go-to for people who don't know a thing about video games. And that sickens me, the most recognizable part of the Video games industry is this copy&paste bullshit? If i'm talking to someone who isn't a gamer, and they try to act interested, they always bring up Call of Duty because that's the biggest thing . . . and I have to resist the urge of punching them in the throat.
There are sufficient posts to convey my opinion, but as much as I respect a persons right to spend 60 dollars on a new Call of Duty game, I just want to throw something out here.
Some may say that if someone thinks if the little changes are "worth" the 60 dollars for an over glorified patch CoD sequel, then it's ok but it's still stupid. Finding "worth" in your purchase doesn't make it any less so.
Some people think it's worth their money to spend hundreds of dollars on cosmetic items in a F2P MMO, doesn't make it any less stupid.
Some people think it's worth their money buying the next Apple iFad product with some minor tweak in processor speed or increase in screen resolution that functions in the exact same manner as the previous one. Doesn't make it any less stupid that you spent 500 dollars on it and effectively replacing your last 500 dollar investment for almost nothing other than bragging rights on how much higher your screen res is.
Some people also think that spending hundreds of dollars a week on marijuana is worth their money, but it doesn't make it any less stupid. I actually know guys who could have bought a house with the amount of money they spent on pot, no joke.
World of Warcraft is a good example. Some people may think that spending 15 dollars a month on the games sub is stupid and not worth it. It's a service and I thought that receiving hours of gameplay, biweekly patches for balancing and bug fixes and bimonthly content patches for additional hours of gameplay were, in fact, worth the 15 dollars a month.
In contrast to Call of duty, you pay 60 dollars for hours of gameplay and some minor balancing tweaks. Then you pay an additional 15 dollars ~ 3 times a year for additional maps. Then the end of the year, it gets replaced with a new game for 60 dollars and the whole cycle starts over. All of which receives no support from the developers because all their patches are in the new game.
Forgot to mention. I can still play online with people in WoW who haven't bought the expansions, unlike every iteration of CoD.
Now I think the CoD example is stupid. Why? All that money spent and you get no support. If you expect me to put up that kind of cash for one game, I sure as hell be getting some decent game support. I want bug fixes and balancing, not a half broken game and promise of said problems being fixed in the new one for the price of a full game.
It's all a matter of opinion, but I hope you get the idea.
Three things: 1) Your spelling, grammar, etc... are bad enough in a few places to make your points difficult to understand. I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi, but if you're trying to raise a legitimate point it helps to look professional. 2) Call of Duty's multiplayer mechanics actually don't change much. Spawns are as dreadful now as they were in MW2. Weapon firing mechanics (when, how, and where a bullet goes) were unacceptable in Black Ops (suppressing your weapon actually slowed down your RoF by about .12 seconds). 3) You, my friend, are the reason CoD gets a bad rap. You're an exploiter. It's not the children with fouler language than a trucker/sailer/soldier or the frat boys who call you queer to comfort there own homosexual insecurities (actually most players over 20 I've played with suck). It's the exploiters who map out spawn locations using dev tools so they can control the whole map with two friends and an office building.
That's not fun for anyone else. Games are supposed to be fun. When you take pleasure from another's displeasure you're engaging in Schadenfreude and/or are a sadist. There's nothing wrong with that, but having me unwittingly and unwillingly take part in your pleasure, you're almost raping me. Almost.
Get yourself an Airsoft or paintball gun, and see how good you are at imitation war (as opposed to simulated war) because you've yet to demonstrate a legitimate tactic.
Adding new weapon skins to a game isn't innovation. Innovation would be if you can do something with those guns that you couldn't do before in any other games. The first time an FPS offered alternate fire modes for guns - THAT was innovation. The first time an FPS used regenerating health - THAT was innovation. The first time an FPS let you hop into a vehicle and drive it around - THAT was innovation. Etc
Its also important to realize innovation doesn't mean good, apparently game called Faceball was the frist FPS to use regenerating shilds, not the first game though.
drisky: Its also important to realize innovation doesn't mean good, apparently game called Faceball was the frist FPS to use regenerating shilds, not the first game though.
Trust me, I agree with you there. But I wasn't trying to argue that the games responsible for innovation are necessarily good games. Something doesn't have to be "good" to be influential.
I was merely trying to point out that adapting pre-existing features and mechanics from other games into a different game isn't innovation, it's iteration.
Chapel1185: Name one decorated female war vet, or one female fighting on the front line in an infantry platoon.
The Soviet Union had quite a few badass frontline female soldiers in WWII. Here's a couple:
Then there's badasses like British agent Nancy Wake. "From April 1944 to the liberation of France, her 7,000 maquisards fought 22,000 SS soldiers, causing 1,400 casualties, while taking only 100 themselves. Her French companions, especially Henri Tardivat, praised her fighting spirit, amply demonstrated when she killed an SS sentry with her bare hands to prevent him from raising the alarm during a raid.
During a 1990s television interview, when asked what had happened to the sentry who spotted her, Wake simply drew her finger across her throat. "They'd taught this judo-chop stuff with the flat of the hand at SOE, and I practiced away at it. But this was the only time I used it -- whack -- and it killed him all right. I was really surprised."
As far as decorated female veterans from the United States, here's a couple.
And currently Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden, and Switzerland allow female soldiers to fill active combat roles...
Owen Robertson: Three things: 1) Your spelling, grammar, etc... are bad enough in a few places to make your points difficult to understand. I'm not trying to be a grammar nazi, but if you're trying to raise a legitimate point it helps to look professional. 2) Call of Duty's multiplayer mechanics actually don't change much. Spawns are as dreadful now as they were in MW2. Weapon firing mechanics (when, how, and where a bullet goes) were unacceptable in Black Ops (suppressing your weapon actually slowed down your RoF by about .12 seconds). 3) You, my friend, are the reason CoD gets a bad rap. You're an exploiter. It's not the children with fouler language than a trucker/sailer/soldier or the frat boys who call you queer to comfort there own homosexual insecurities (actually most players over 20 I've played with suck). It's the exploiters who map out spawn locations using dev tools so they can control the whole map with two friends and an office building
Get yourself an Airsoft or paintball gun, and see how good you are at imitation war (as opposed to simulated war) because you've yet to demonstrate a legitimate tactic.
1. yeh, sorry about that, i'll try and imporve in future post's 2. i think that all the small changes add up to a new gaming experience, and even small things can make a big differance. As i've said before flak jacket, just adding 1 perk hugely changed how you defend an objective 3. ? i don't see how me being better than most people at the game and understanding the basics such as the spawn system and how to "spawn trap" makes me the bad guy. If you're not enjoying a game because you're not good at it then you should either improve or quit, dont wine to the good players to stop beating you and give you a chance and purposefully play bad because what they are doing is "un fair" because that's just unsporting behavior 4. ? COD is nothing like actual warfare or combat so why would i play it like a real war? 5. i do a lot of cadets and am a corporal, im not acting like im an expert on war fighting but i know a fair bit about it
drisky: Its also important to realize innovation doesn't mean good, apparently game called Faceball was the frist FPS to use regenerating shilds, not the first game though.
Trust me, I agree with you there. But I wasn't trying to argue that the games responsible for innovation are necessarily good games. Something doesn't have to be "good" to be influential.
I was merely trying to point out that adapting pre-existing features and mechanics from other games into a different game isn't innovation, it's iteration.
Chapel1185: Name one decorated female war vet, or one female fighting on the front line in an infantry platoon.
The Soviet Union had quite a few badass frontline female soldiers in WWII. Here's a couple:
Then there's badasses like British agent Nancy Wake. "From April 1944 to the liberation of France, her 7,000 maquisards fought 22,000 SS soldiers, causing 1,400 casualties, while taking only 100 themselves. Her French companions, especially Henri Tardivat, praised her fighting spirit, amply demonstrated when she killed an SS sentry with her bare hands to prevent him from raising the alarm during a raid.
During a 1990s television interview, when asked what had happened to the sentry who spotted her, Wake simply drew her finger across her throat. "They'd taught this judo-chop stuff with the flat of the hand at SOE, and I practiced away at it. But this was the only time I used it -- whack -- and it killed him all right. I was really surprised."
As far as decorated female veterans from the United States, here's a couple.
And currently Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden, and Switzerland allow female soldiers to fill active combat roles...
1. yeh, sorry about that, i'll try and imporve in future post's 2. i think that all the small changes add up to a new gaming experience, and even small things can make a big differance. As i've said before flak jacket, just adding 1 perk hugely changed how you defend an objective 3. ? i don't see how me being better than most people at the game and understanding the basics such as the spawn system and how to "spawn trap" makes me the bad guy. If you're not enjoying a game because you're not good at it then you should either improve or quit, dont wine to the good players to stop beating you and give you a chance and purposefully play bad because what they are doing is "un fair" because that's just unsporting behavior 4. ? COD is nothing like actual warfare or combat so why would i play it like a real war? 5. i do a lot of cadets and am a corporal, im not acting like im an expert on war fighting but i know a fair bit about it
It's not about being better (which I will fully admit you are), or about me complaining of "fairness" (I never used the word), it's simply about playing the game as it's intended, rather than pushing the limits and/or breaking the rules. I just want to run around with a rifle, and shoot someone from Connecticut, and not have to compete with a semi-professional who looks to have his enemies driven before him, and see the lamentation of their women. In response to number 4, I always thought CoD was (originally at least) a combat simulator (I realize perks and re-spawning are ridiculous). That's why I like Barebones. You, your weapon, maybe some 'nades. No HUD, no Kill-streaks, no Perks. (Once again, I realize there's a difference between holding a firearm on a battlefield and holding a controller in my living room). As for 5, I never said you COULDN'T, I only said you haven't yet. But, as you see CoD as a game and competition, you don't feel any obligation to act differently than you would on the court/ice/gridiron/diamond etc.
11. for what its worth it had zombies (although cod 5 had zombies)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
11. This is an invalid analogy because you're making shitty, shitty points. In this case the pigeon appears to be the better player.
This is the funniest argument I've ever heard. Ever. Both sides. That made my fucking night. Thank you both.
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.
The thing that annoys me about Call of Duty is that it feels like a sports game, like the Madden Series. Every year they release the same damn game, that runs off the same damn engine, and all they seem to do is update the roster someone and make the occasional tweak.
Call of Duty has the benefit over a Madden game of at least having a story, but I've never much cared for the single player.
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
Well I've hit the point in my life where I hate anyone without a bachelor's degree, so saying that "Most players are 16-18" doesn't make it any better. I just don't find the community as a whole very pleasant.
The franchise simply has so much financial success and reception. Ask any out of touch, non gaming people to name one game. Nine times out of ten, they'll say CoD.
Is CoD the god awful piece of shit we claim it is? Doubtful, but I still don't believe it deserves this attention. People are just frustrated.
Call of Duty has become like the Madden and NHL games. They may as well skip naming them and just go with Call of Duty: 2013. Of course, that opens the market up to more spinoffs if one particular year is more popular. CoD:2013:2 anyone?
I don't really get angry at CoD, it's a mediocre series that doesn't appeal to me, so I don't play it. And that's fine. What I do feel is pity for those folks who feel obligated to buy the next one. I mean, is it for the story? I doubt it. Are there really that many changes made that every sequel must be bought? You've been tricked, CoD fans, by a cruel, cruel, joke.
So... does CoD deserve the hate? Not really. It doesn't deserve any energy from those people who already don't like the games because it's getting a surplus from those who do. My advice is just let the people who like them buy the games and just don't bother.