Why is Call of Duty so popular?

I really don't understand this. I find the series bland because of it's recycling of the same game with a different skin every year. I personally can't spend more then a minute with a call of duty game before it gets bland, much of my friends have similar opinions towards it.

My question is: how did it become this big?

Because it allows people with very little time to feel they accomplished something in a rather addictive multiplayer.

It's quite ingenious for a pick up and play game too.

Also, just because YOU don't find it that great doesn't mean EVERYONE ELSE will too.

Low barrier to entry. It has multiple, frequent rewards and I guess the setting appeals to people?

From what I have seen. It's almost like a throwback to shooters of yore but it has a 2 weapon limit and doesn't use the Y axis whatsoever.

Matthew94:
Low barrier to entry. It has multiple, frequent rewards and I guess the setting appeals to people?

From what I have seen. It's almost like a throwback to shooters of yore but it has a 2 weapon limit and doesn't use the Y axis whatsoever.

Also because the shooting is satisfying and the campaigns, while very cliche do have the same sort of appeal that the Transformers movies do. Also, CoD: 4 is a legimately great game. Hell, it's the only CoD that Yahtzee has praised as being good.

Because the game is, by most accounts, very well designed and is exactly what the target audience is looking for.

It's a game that hits all the right notes in it's campaigns, with uncomplicated play and a variety of scenes that play out just like the stuff you used to only be able to see in movies. It's also got very solid gameplay on a technical level used to back up the sort of quick in, quick out that it's mutliplayer has pretty much perfected. Oh, and the huge community that plays the game provides an unending parade of opponents to play against with pretty much no downtime.

It's pretty obvious to see why the game is popular when you're not just viewing it as something you don't personally like.

I kind of like Call of Duty, but not all the time. I enjoy it in little bite-size sittings here and there.

It's fun to shoot dudes, it feels pretty satisfying leveling up and I've had ludicrous amounts of fun playing Demolition and Capture the Flag with a team of friends.

It's fun as hell with friends on the multiplayer.
The campaign is great mindless fun.
Explosions.
Slow motion explosions.
Price's moustache.
Confronting people with a riot shield on the MP and seeing their confusion is also a fun thing to do.

It has its charms and it can be a good time kill before something important but it's something I can only play in small doses or with friends, honestly.

StriderShinryu:
Because the game is, by most accounts, very well designed and is exactly what the target audience is looking for.

It's a game that hits all the right notes in it's campaigns, with uncomplicated play and a variety of scenes that play out just like the stuff you used to only be able to see in movies. It's also got very solid gameplay on a technical level used to back up the sort of quick in, quick out that it's mutliplayer has pretty much perfected. Oh, and the huge community that plays the game provides an unending parade of opponents to play against with pretty much no downtime.

It's pretty obvious to see why the game is popular when you're not just viewing it as something you don't personally like.

This.

People whine and complain about the multiplayer not being balanced enough, but all in all, you get a heck of a lot of content for an FPS. A 4-6 hour campaign, co-op missions and a very robust multiplayer mode. Treyarch even packs in Zombie Mode and plenty of hidden secrets in their games.

Aside from the usual hype backlash, Activision always puts out a solid package. I still don't agree with the way they handled IW, but they do put out a very consistent product.

Ok think of Call of Duty as your favourite menu choice in a restaurant, or your regular holiday/vacation destination. Each time you eat/go to these things it gets a little bit worse, a little bit more bland and boring. But, there's always those small things that are different that keep you coming back for more. A new chef may have come into the restaurant, and is cooking the meal with a different style? You may discover a new place you haven't been to. That's why Call of Duty is popular.

Well it's the reason I like it.

It's what people want. The Call of Duty franchise doesn't change because it's already everything millions of gamers like.

Gamers who mainly play Call of Duty don't mind if the 4 hour long campaign sucks, it's the multiplayer that's the only thing they care about.

Because the campaign like playing an action movie, especially with the Modern Warfare series. And the multi-player is rather addictive, especially while playing with friends.

Terminate421:
Because it allows people with very little time to feel they accomplished something in a rather addictive multiplayer.

It's quite ingenious for a pick up and play game too.

Also, just because YOU don't find it that great doesn't mean EVERYONE ELSE will too.

Pretty much this.

Simple gameplay, fun leveling system, easy to get into. They aren't "bad" games. They could just be a lot better (longer and more meaningful single player, less sequels)

1) COD 4 acctually had a good enough story to hook lots of new players into the francise.
2) the series has more or less the largest player base when it comes to multiplayer
3) Zombies
4) the later, not as well written campigns, are still fairly well-disigned shooting galleries and obstecle courses.

The same reason people like Half-Life. They think it's good.

Why do I get the feeling that you phrased this in the form of a question so that you can try to knock on CoD without it seeming like you're standing up on a soap box?

Terminate421:
Because it allows people with very little time to feel they accomplished something in a rather addictive multiplayer.

It's quite ingenious for a pick up and play game too.

Also, just because YOU don't find it that great doesn't mean EVERYONE ELSE will too.

I agree with you completely.

What COD does, it does well. Hell, it does it very well.

Polock:
They could just be a lot better (longer and more meaningful single player, less sequels)

I don't mind the yearly sequels really as I view the series as following more of a sports game type model. Of course, that doesn't mean that I personally think the series is worth full price every year, but it's a system that obviously works and works well. Plus, hardcore fans of the series would likely have a lot to say about just how many changes there actually are in each yearly iteration. As a dedicated fighting game fan, I know that I feel the same way. From the outside, it doesn't look like the different versions add more than a slight roster change and maybe updated graphics here and there. Once you get down to the nuts and bolts, however, little changes can make huge differences in how the games actually play.

I'm also not sure I agree with the part about wanting the games to be longer. The way a CoD campaign is structured plays to the 4 to 6 hour length. It's already a bombastic loud explosion filled mess, and I use the term endearingly. That sort of thing wouldn't work at all if it was stretched over 10+ hours.

Whilst I'm not a huge fan of the more recent COD games (for reason I'm not entirely sure of) - COD 4 is, in my opinion, the best multiplayer FPS of all time.

In addition to what everyone else has said, because the games are good.

BLASPHEMY! you say.

Sure, each new one isn't much different, but since when (after 4) was it trying to be anything other than incremental improvement on solid, established gameplay?

Like a TV series instead of a movie franchise.

Aerosteam 1908:
It's what people want. The Call of Duty franchise doesn't change because it's already everything millions of gamers like.

Gamers who mainly play Call of Duty don't mind if the 4 hour long campaign sucks, it's the multiplayer that's the only thing they care about.

Actually, the campaign is rather fun and I wasnt too thrilled about the multiplayer.

I for one bought the games only for the campaign, even if it was heart breakingly short, Cod4 gets ya hooked, then you want to know how it ends.

Sure its story wont win any awards, but that doesnt keep it from being good.,

Accessibility, marketing campaigns with LOTSA money, a game a year, it's pretty easy (not necessarily a bad thing), and 'all your friends are doing it, so you can play with all your friends! Yay!'

I've played a bit and seen a lot of gameplay...and yeah, I can see why you're confused. It's actually competantly put together, it just hasn't done much to actually earn it's success on it's own merits.

It's still fun, but...that's kinda all there is to it. Short term, easy to access fun available on four different platforms. Nothing wrong with that. It's something people can easily play together because EVERYONE plays it. Even people who don't really play a lot of games.

The main reason really is usually everyone friends are playing it. Eventually along he line, another game will be that "game" that all your friends and idols are raving about.

It's incredibly easy. Incredibly accessible. Incredibly appealing to the major market.

Also though, it's a great jump-in-and-play kind of game.

Because it's great.
I love all the CoD games. I'm just a bit sad that there's nothing truly refreshing introduced with all the yearly installments, but I still love it all.

Well, the campaign of Call of duty 4 really was great. That part were you had to sneak around in chernobyl ? It really was a great tense moment. The campaign really felt like you're in an action movie, and that's what it is trying to do.

I think the Multiplayer is great for people who just want to sit down and relax by shooting some dudes. Though I prefer Counter Strike, I can see the appeal of not having to wait when you die. While Counter Strike is a great game, you will spend your time waiting the first matches you play. Call of Duty is that kind of game where you can pick it up and already be decent with it, which is great for people who don't really have time.

While there might be some genuine problems with the franchise, I think there's too much mindless hate on cod because it's cool to hate that now.

MamaBear:
I really don't understand this. I find the series bland because of it's recycling of the same game with a different skin every year. I personally can't spend more then a minute with a call of duty game before it gets bland, much of my friends have similar opinions towards it.

My question is: how did it become this big?

Because many people enjoy it and have fun with it, we all have different taste, I personally don't mind picking up the previous years cod for $20 to play the short campaign or some zombies, I actually rather enjoyed black ops campaign all things considered. It was no masterpiece but It wasn't a terrible way to spend 4 hours. and zombies is always fun when played split screen with friends

I don't play anymore cause the community bugs me to hell but it's a pretty addictive multiplayer game that's well designed and just overall fun to play with friends, and that's what matters in the end.

Because they're all fun, at least the multiplayer modes are. Except for MW3. That shit is terribad.

It has an addictive gameplay, it keep drawing me back in. I haven't played Call of Duty since last year, but this new ones sounds promising, so I went back to Black Ops earlier this week and found it a lot of fun. Now I lent Modern Warfare 3 and I'm currently going through veteran campaign, which has been more fun and easier than I expected it to be.

MamaBear:
I find the series bland because of it's recycling of the same game with a different skin every year.

Have you played any Call of Duty more than a few hours? Apart from World at War, not a single Call of Duty can be called anywhere close to just a re-skin of it's predecessor. I understand and agree with a lot of the complaints about Call of Duty, but this as an argument has about as much weight as someone saying that BF3 and MW3 are unrecognizable from each other and tells more about the person making the argument than anything else.

I've played the campaigns of the three Modern Warfare games because of friends, and they were fun enough. Not long enough to make me consider spending $60 on them, because I don't care about the multi-player, but they were decent enough First-Person Shooter campaigns. If the levels had more ways of proceeding to the end, I might have considered buying them for quick, replayable arcade-y fun, given the fact that back in the day something like Sonic the Hedgehog cost ~$50 and is only about three-four hours long, and that's if you keep dying and restarting from the beginning.

I think it's to do with CoD4 as it marked out what a modern aged shooter should be, it had a good story, brilliant soundtrack and of course it had the nuke scene where you get to see the aftermath of a nuke going off, which is why I love CoD it changed modern shooters

A lot of you have given very good reasons. I think I may try a Call of Duty for more then five minutes. Which one is the best in the series?

Easy to pick up, rewards you for ever single (no matter how stupid) thing you do, guns, expansions, manly man for manly man, more guns, shallow enough that even the biggest idiot can understand, more guns, more explosions... are you sure you don't see why this is appealing to the average Joe?

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked