Let's talk about Call of Duty

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

So with Black Ops 2 right around the corner I figured it was time to do something I've wanted to do for a while. Let's talk about Call of Duty. No I don't mean fling shit at it and nor do I mean masturbate to Black Ops 2 gameplay videos. There are several issues that have been hanging over Call of Duty as a franchise for a while now and it's time we address them in a calm and dignified manner. These statements will largely focus on the multiplayer since it is by far the selling point, but the campaign can be something else to bring up on the side. First I'll get this out of the way though, yes, I am a fan of Call of Duty. Do I think it's perfect? No. Second if you simply don't like Call of Duty's gameplay (multiplayer in particular) THAT'S FINE! (Please don't comment to tell me that either) I'm not here to try and change your taste in games, or to insult/degrade you. This is simply my take on the various issues people have with Call of Duty that aren't related to personal perference. On that note, let's begin.

"It's only played by 10-year-olds"

"CoD is full of Racist/Sexist/Stupid people"

"It's repetitive"

"It started the Modern Shooter market saturation"

"It's the same game every year"

That's all of the arguments against CoD I hear on a regular basis. I'm just really tired of CoD being blamed for the downfall of gaming or other verbose melodrama. I'm also tired of people assuming that playing CoD makes you some sort of sub-human. I might have just wasted my time in writing all of this, but I feel better knowing that I didn't just sit there while being stereotyped. If you disagree with something I said, tell me why. Please keep it civil :)

Sorry to do the one thing you specifically asked not to do but I'm sorry I just don't like multiplayer, especially the multiplayer in Call of Duty.

Do you know how I deal with that though? I just don't play it. (I know shock horror!)
It certainly hasn't stopped me from enjoying Call of Duty specifically for the single player though. (Although playing Call of Duty JUST for the singleplayer may in itself be a little unusual... I don't know?)

I don't dislike playing multiplayer for any of the reasons you listed I just don't find it fun. I get the feeling though that most of the problems people tend to complain about with Call of Duty are more about what it represents rather than the about the games themselves, more so its effects on the industry as a whole... you know what I mean?

In any case I don't agree with any of the hate. You can count me as another fan... even if it may be for slightly different reasons than yourself.

Cheers

King Billi:
Sorry to do the one thing you specifically asked not to do but I'm sorry I just don't like multiplayer, especially the multiplayer in Call of Duty.

Do you know how I deal with that though? I just don't play it. (I know shock horror!)
It certainly hasn't stopped me from enjoying Call of Duty specifically for the single player though. (Although playing Call of Duty JUST for the singleplayer may in itself be a little unusual... I don't know?)

I don't dislike playing multiplayer for any of the reasons you listed I just don't find it fun. I get the feeling though that most of the problems people tend to complain about with Call of Duty are more about what it represents rather than the about the games themselves, more so its effects on the industry as a whole... you know what I mean?

In any case I don't agree with any of the hate. You can count me as another fan... even if it may be for slightly different reasons than yourself.

Cheers

Well it's like what I said, if you don't find mp fun then I have no problem. Although youre the first person I've seen who likes CoD purely because of single player.

Cheers indeed!

I would like to talk about CoD but I literally get sick playing it. The PC ports are such shit (FoV) that I can't play it for 60 minutes without headaches and nausia. And stay away with Blops, that was not better in terms of FoV.

On the other arguments:

1: Eh, the argument that only a certain age group plays a game is always stupid. Not only do those people not have any solid evidence for that statement, they also imply that something is bad just because 10y old can enjoy it. I enjoy MLP, Pokemon and Mario RPGs, my little sis (9y) does enjoy all 3 of those as well.

2: I don't see the mute button as a solid way of solving this issue. I have my regular TF2 server with strict moderation and anyone who starts insulting is going to see a ban rather quick. Giving the players the control over what kind of people they want to play with can improve the situation, forcing them to play with all kind of dickheads without giving them a proper method of sorting them out ruins the fun for at least one group of people: Teamplayer who just want to have a nice game with others. If CoD would have dedicated servers with ranked matches on it this would imrpove, in the situation now the community has no way of improving.

3: So is every multiplayer FPS. Though the modability of my favorite ones always has a big amount of choice in what I want to play. CoD has for my taste not enough game modes that are different in the way I play it. There are no parkour maps to train advanced movement, no surf maps, no randomizer to just fuck up or improve my perception of classes / loadouts. The few times I played it, even if I played with an objective it was always just reduced to "I run around and kill a player or get shot without any means of reacting". This was mostly due to my lack in mapknowledge (and that is also one of my gripes: the maps are boring and badly balanced).

4: No, that would be Counter Strike. It was the first big 'realistic' multiplayer FPS. From there the forumla got changed a little: Regenerating health, narrow FoV and inability to hit the side of a barn without ramming a gun into your nostrils was added.

5: I can't say anything about that. For one because I would be a hypocrit then because I would only judge the outer appearance like a lot of people do about one of my favorite game series of all time (Pokemon) and I hate that, for other I haven't played a CoD since CoD 1(!) for longer than 1h (like I wrote above, MW3 and Blops make me literally sick).

And finally: Eh, who cares? There are always smug people who 'hate' a game with irrational passion. I dislike CoD for my various reasons (like what it did to my favorite genre) but this is a subjective feeling about a game that enough people seem to enjoy and who the fuck am I to judge about people and their leasure activities? I spend last night breeding fucking Pokemon to finally get a Scraggy with decent IVs and right nature and ability, I am the last person to judge.

I agree! I've said this repeatedly and I'll say it again:

Call of Duty is not a bad game. If you don't enjoy it, that's fine, but calling it a bad game because you don't like it is silly. Most of the arguments I hear against the game is the same tired argument that you hear against sport games: "It's the same game with a different skin! Only sheep buy it!"

For lack of a better word, that is either an extreme hyperbole or incredible ignorance (for sport games or CoD). Yeah, if you look at screenshots, every CoD looks the same. However, give me any title that has ever been created and using the power of ignorance and exaggeration, I will tell you how it is just like every game that has ever been created in that genre.

As to your points:
1. I'm 26 and not racist, sexist, or stupid (or at least not sexist/racist!). The group I play with are in their late 20's, 30's, and 40's and there are multiple parents in that group.
2. Repetitive is such a stupid argument that I'm not going to bother. Show me a game and I will show you making repetitive actions in order to create a desired effect. Shit, the idea of gaming without repetition is a pipe-dream.
3. Caused the saturation? No, other companies who are just copy/pasting CoD are the ones that are saturating the market.

You are allowed to not like Call of Duty. It's people that have it in their mind that because I like Call of Duty I am either a sheep who is unable to think for themselves or a dumb jock gamer who couldn't give you the name of any other game (besides maybe Madden).

I've never played any of the Black Duty or Modern Call games, and I feel incredibly left out of these discussions. =(

ImmortalDrifter:

"It's the same game every year"

I find this one one of the most annoying of the arguments. The only recent CoD games I could consider remotely samey are MW2 and MW3, otherwise there's usually quite a bit of difference between them:

-MW1 was more grounded in reality than the others, and was the first game in the series to take place in a time period that wasn't WW2.
-WaW went back to World War 2 with more of a gritty approach than most games have ever attempted, plus multiplayer-wise it actually gave a reason for Prestiging (in MW1, Prestiging was pretty much just to increase the size of your E-Penis).
-MW2 took a more action movie approach to Modern Warfare and made things more chaotic and less grounded in reality, both in the multiplayer and singleplayer.
-Black Ops took place in the 1960's and was the first game to NOT have a silent and faceless protagonist, plus it introduced theater modes for the multiplayer and changed how the unlock system worked.
-MW3... well, okay, that one was incredibly similar to MW2 but was even less coherent and made even less sense, and it introduced weapon leveling-up and pointstreaks that didn't involve how many kills you got without dieing.

And now Black Ops 2 will take place in the future, have a non-linear storyline with branching paths, and is totally restructuring how loadouts work in the multiplayer. If anything, that sounds like a pretty different game compared to the previous incarnations.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
This one is also funny. COD catches so much flack for not "evolving", while Total War is fine...? What major innovations has CA made to it's long running series between Medieval 2 and Shogun 2? Naval battles, better multiplayer, and that's about it.

Just wanted to pick on this bit; I imagine the reason Total War doesn't get flack for not introducing "major innovations" is because each one is set in a completely different period to the last (except for Napoleon following Empire). That means new units, tactics, maps, technologies and setting on top of the graphical overhaul each version usually gets.

I can see what you're getting at because the core real-time-strategy doesn't change all that much, at it's most basic Shogun 2 is still the same clicking your unit onto their unit until one team has no units left that we had in Medieval or Rome, but even to the untrained eye each one is still obviously different to the one that came before it. The same can't necessarily be said for Call of Duty.

Black Ops 2 looks like it might be a good laugh, though.

ImmortalDrifter:
*snip*

God fucking GOD.

Thank you, at least someone with common sense. I cant fucking belive it.

I agree with all of this 100%. It seems like it is simply cool to hate on COD these days. Its like some kind of mini meme or something, people do it simply because a lof of people are doing it. Thats how I feel about all of this.

No it is not perfect. No game is anways.

Tdoodle:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
This one is also funny. COD catches so much flack for not "evolving", while Total War is fine...? What major innovations has CA made to it's long running series between Medieval 2 and Shogun 2? Naval battles, better multiplayer, and that's about it.

Just wanted to pick on this bit; I imagine the reason Total War doesn't get flack for not introducing "major innovations" is because each one is set in a completely different period to the last (except for Napoleon following Empire). That means new units, tactics, maps, technologies and setting on top of the graphical overhaul each version usually gets.

In cod that would translate to new maps, perks, killstreaks, weapons...

Its pretty much the same deal for both games. I dont see why people are bashing on cod only.

ImmortalDrifter:
"It started the Modern Shooter market saturation"

I really can't say that this isn't true. I can however say that it isn't CoD's fault. Whenever something is popular hordes of pretenders will try to ride its coattails. It happened with Star Wars, Twilight, Law and Order, the Da Vinci Code, Black Sabbath, Monkey Island, Seinfeld, Half-life, the Simpsons and whoever the first metalcore band was. It isn't CoD you should be angry at, but rather those who insist on trying to emulate it. CoD didn't force anyone to make a knock off of it, retarded publishers did.

That's actually the root of the problem, and it isn't anything new.
Call of Duty 4, like Halo before it, Mario before that, etc, was too successful relative to the rest of its market.

When such a game is that overwhelmingly successful, it encourages business to further overtake creative license, and this in turn pressures developers to cash-in rather than take creative risks.

This effect is further amplified by Call of Duty 4's timing; it attained success at the end of a gaming market high, and dominates in terms of raw sales during a period of consolidation (you may have noticed a whole bunch of studios closing their doors and mass-layoffs in the last few years).

What incentive is there to innovate when your game sets sales records year after year?
And why does it set sales records when the market is consolidating? Simple: Because their competition is struggling.

Robber Barons. Great Depression. Similar outcome.

Due to recession, gamers have more time, but less disposable income. They're more inclined to pick the game series with the best track record, and the online component of CoD4.x is easily the main reason people play it, so it fills the time quota.

"The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer".

This in turn, leads to intensified filtering of genre until the consolidation ends, and re-diversification begins (which I'd tentatively guess is starting within a year or two; possibly now. All of this stuff is defined in retrospect, really).
I didn't expect to see another Tribes game ever again, yet it finally happened this year.

As for the sports analogy: This is more akin to one sport becoming so dominant, that it pushes all other sports aside unless they conform. Rugby, Soccer, Baseball turning into Football even where it doesn't fit.

(Taking this concept to a broader topic in gaming, you can find evidence of "broader appeal" in several other genre games: Resident Evil 6. Dead Space 3. The new Devil May Cry perhaps.)

If that sounds silly, well, one it's an analogy, and two video games are infinitely more malleable in their logic than any real-life sport. Which in turn I imagine is why some gamers get so pissed off at seeing the same game set sales records year after year.
You have all of these resources, all of this opportunity, and they spend it doing a Telemann Performance of last year.

The sad part is that bitching about it does absolutely nothing. Until the market outright rejects CoD4.x, it will continue on exactly as it has.

Oh boy, here we go again. I don't dislike Call of Duty for the reasons you listed, I dislike it for many other, completely legitimate reasons. But, I might as well examine your points while I'm at it.

1 & 2. People have different tolerance levels when it comes to screaming ten year olds and extreme bigotry. I don't know how much of the Call of Duty user base consists of these people (I haven't played it since MW2, and not on Xbox, which is apparently the worst for this sort of thing), but I have seen enough evidence that these people do exist. And for some people, the amount of these idiots is too much. And some of these people don't want to eliminate all social interaction in the game, so they would probably rather not play with everybody muted.

I guess my point is that just because it isn't an issue for you, doesn't mean it isn't a valid issue for anybody else. Also, just because it's everywhere on the internet doesn't mean that it's any less excusable when it happens in Call of Duty, or that Call of Duty should be able to avoid criticism for it.

3. Again, just because it's not repetitive for you doesn't mean it isn't repetitive for somebody else. You're still free to enjoy it, but the people that do think it's repetitive are free to dislike it, and express their dislike (so long as they're not being dicks about it, which is something I won't defend).

4. No, knock-offs aren't Call of Duty's fault. Really, anybody using this argument against Call of Duty instead of against the industry in general is kind of an idiot.

5. I would say that no series can make enough evolutions to justify sixty dollar sequels every damn year. Additionally, yearly sequels (especially when they're being worked on by several different studios) inevitably means that they won't be able to figure out exactly how to evolve the series in a meaningful way, instead just throwing in changes just to make it not the exact same game.

Anyway, I have to go to class soon, so I don't have time to post my problems with the Call of Duty series, so I'll just copy what I posted in this thread, which was in response to this article.

Actually, none of the reasons you listed are reasons I don't like CoD. In fact, I rather like the over-the-top super-hyper-over-realistic gameplay of the single player. It's when I start talking to the community that I get annoyed. Not because they're racist, or sexist, or 12 years old, but because they're absolute fuckheads. Not stupid, just assholes that won't understand that their opinion isn't always the perfect one.

That being said, there's one other thing that means I'm constantly at odds with the entire CoD series. Their claim to have realistic guns. I've written many, many posts about this, but the thing I dislike the most about CoD is the fact that the guns are really just fucked up. The damage stats are off with how they should be, the accuracy stats are purely objective, and with so many of their newer games, what the literal fuck were they thinking by adding certain guns? I mean, the AT4 now locks on to aircraft? Now that they're going into the near future, they should be using futuristic guns, not prototypes canceled in 2004 because it was a shit gun (the XM8/M8). Their lack of knowledge with these things shows that the devs were too lazy to even check wikipedia on this, it's like they were watching an episode of Future Weapons and thought "Oh, that looks cool, let's put that in!" I mean, the M27 IAR and the HAMR are both newly developed IARs, yet in game one of them is an assault rifle and the other is a light machine gun.

and WHAT THE FUCK IS THE SMR?!?!

That being said, I do like the fact that there's finally a game with the Sig 556 in it, and I'll probably buy it because zombies is always fun and I want to use a Sig to shoot some zombies.

I agree with EVERYTHING you said. And while certain Escapees on here do have good points (ohnoitsabear, SmashLovesTitanQuest) I will still play and love the Call of Duty games, for both the single player AND the multiplayer.

I'm going to pick at a few of your thoughts of CoD, not saying they are wrong or anything but just trying to put my own thoughts on some of the reasons you stated.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

2) The biggest problems with COD's multiplayer is too much fucking shit. MW3 had like 50 different killstreaks that went into 3 different streak systems. Every gun had over 10 attachments. Those guns also came with a slot for a speciality of your choosing, ranging from more damage to increased range. That's not to mention your 2 equipment slots and 3 perk slots. Oh, and don't forget deathstreaks, theres also five or so of those in MW2 and MW3.

It is too much. Both Infinity Ward and Treyarch have proven they are not competent enough to balance all this stuff, while Sledgehammer have proven they shouldn't be let near any multiplayer modes in the future. It is the wrong kind of "innovation". Killstreaks aren't even killstreaks anymore, you can go 5-45 and still get a UAV.

I really do like the options of getting to pick what ever kill streak you want. If gives you options and I love having option. They three types of picking if you want to go support, specialist, and assault. Granted support should have never had stealth boomer, it should be more for helping the team. Also if your a weak player and pick support and go 5-45 and get a UAV I think that makes them feel like they are actually helping and not just a waist on the team. There are people out there that might not be able to compete with people that are better then them. That's probably a reason why they came out with death streaks.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

And when they do have a great idea, they go ahead and exclude it from the next game. Stopping Power and Cold Blooded should still exist. Killstreaks should actually be powerful. Even One Man Army was an interesting idea that should have had a place in the COD games after MW2, obviously with some changes.

But no, they excluded all of those things while keeping Second Chance and deathstreaks in the game. Hell, they even added new killstreaks. What are they doing?

Stopping Power was over powered so they took it out, also Cold Blooded/Ghost. They were getting so over powered they had to dumb them down or get rid of them. Cold Blooded is still in the game it just goes by different names and now it's multiple perks. So in MW3 it would be blind eye and assassin makes cold blooded/ghost. They are actually getting rid of second chance.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

So how do you fix all of this?

a) Bring back the aforementioned Stopping Power
b) Stick to the number of perks and perk slots they have now
c) No more fucking specialist or support. You get to choose 3 killstreaks from a list of 10. No fucking stacking upon death or any of that bullshit.
d) Who designed the maps for MW2? You bring that guy back. If you can't get him because you fired him, get the guy from COD 2. If you can't get him, don't fucking make a multiplayer mode, because apparently every other developer Activision can hire doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
e) Cut the campaign and cut the price.
f) Piss off with this COD Elite bullshit and calm down on the DLC. You can't play any recent COD game without being flooded with notifications stressing you to buy the latest "3 really bad maps" DLC.
g) You get a gun and a secondary. Both of those guns get one attachment. Finite.
h) Make the PC versions decent again. If you can't, let a bunch of amateur modders handle it for you and don't fucking nuke their project. Leave AlterIW alone, let it live (or die) in peace.

a) Stopping Power is two over powered and shouldn't come back.
b) Getting rid of your kill steaks in MW3 to get extra perks was really no big deal. Now in Bops2 you have to get rid of guns, grenades, attachments just to have more perk. So if you want 6 perks your going to have to have a pistol or knife.
c) That's for only infinity ward, Treyarchs kill streaks never stack.
e) they would never cut the pice if they still have millions paying for the $59.99.
f) There is no more elite $50 anymore, it's a free service if you would like to use it.
g) if your willing to lose a perk to get more attachments fine buy me, In Bops they used warlord and missed out on better perks.

You have to remember that Infinity Ward and Treyarch are two different people with different ideas for CoD, I do prefer Treyarch cause to me they always seem to be taking good steps towards a better and more even CoD. If you play with friends and people that are going to jerks then you can always find fun in any game. I will probably never going to touch the single player but I will be play multiplayer and zombies. It's just a fun shooter to play with friends.

I don't really care about the gameplay nearly as much as I care about the general aesthetic and framing, which is of course a creepy Eurocentric power fantasy. The actual mechanics don't appeal to me, but I wouldn't mind it nearly as much if the Call of Duty games didn't come with shamefully pro-war, pro-America, pro-destruction campaigns and a multiplayer that is focused on essentially nothing but just "see person, shoot person" bloodlust. It just seems to be designed solely to capitalize on the macho, jingoistic dehumanized warfare aesthetic that I find so distasteful and tacky.

Jinxzy:
They three types of picking if you want to go support, specialist, and assault. Granted support should have never had stealth boomer, it should be more for helping the team. Also if your a weak player and pick support and go 5-45 and get a UAV I think that makes them feel like they are actually helping and not just a waist on the team.

Oh yeah, lets balance the game around the guy at the bottom of the scoreboard. What a great idea.

Look, I don't give a fuck if not helping your team hurts your feelings. Theres nothing wrong with bad players getting bad results. If you want a super happy fun time for everyone I suggest you join an elementary school and take part in their sport events, but that type of attitude has no place in any competitive multiplayer game.

Jinxzy:
Stopping Power was over powered so they took it out, also Cold Blooded/Ghost. They were getting so over powered they had to dumb them down or get rid of them. Cold Blooded is still in the game it just goes by different names and now it's multiple perks. So in MW3 it would be blind eye and assassin makes cold blooded/ghost. They are actually getting rid of second chance.

Stopping Power was not imbalanced in any way. Cold Blooded and Lightweight were just as good in MW2, Danger Close was even better than all 3.

Stopping Power might seem imbalanced if you suck, because you need that 40% damage increase since you can't aim for shit. For me, someone who was merely a mediocre player most of the time, it was completely unnecessary and I often opted to use Cold Blooded or Lightweight instead.

On top of that, you need Stopping Power to counter Ghost or Cold Blooded. The minimap is an extremely powerful tool in any recent COD game. Nullifying your opponents opportunity to use it is also extremely powerful. Anything less than a straight up damage increase to your guns or your equipment will not tip the scales again.

If you want proof, look at Black Ops. Ghost was still the best perk in that game (apart from maybe TacMask pro) by a fucking mile, even though it was in the same slot as Flak Jacket. Or look at MW3, although the poor balance of the Assassin perk can be accounted to the poor balance of support streaks like the EMP.

Jinxzy:
c) That's for only infinity ward, Treyarchs kill streaks never stack.

What part of "stacking upon death" did you not understand? And just in case you don't know, some of them do stack upon death, meaning Johnny McScrubbyPants will still be pumping out UAVs despite getting 3 deaths for every kill. Also, killstreaks stacked in WaW, a Treyarch game.

Jinxzy:
e) they would never cut the pice if they still have millions paying for the $59.99.

Well, no shit. I was saying that I would like them to do that, not that they would. Just like I would love to fuck Emma Watson. It's not gonna happen, but a man can dream.

Jinxzy:
f) There is no more elite $50 anymore, it's a free service if you would like to use it.

That's nice.

Jinxzy:
g) if your willing to lose a perk to get more attachments fine buy me, In Bops they used warlord and missed out on better perks.

If shoddy balance is fine by you, go right ahead. It stays shoddy balance though.

Jinxzy:
You have to remember that Infinity Ward and Treyarch are two different people with different ideas for CoD, I do prefer Treyarch cause to me they always seem to be taking good steps towards a better and more even CoD. If you play with friends and people that are going to jerks then you can always find fun in any game. I will probably never going to touch the single player but I will be play multiplayer and zombies. It's just a fun shooter to play with friends.

Let's pull Emma back into this, shall we? If I go to a vasectomy with her, that shit might be fun. But it's still a fucking vasectomy. I have good company but the activity stays shit.

Well in a few days the Hardened edition of Blops 2 will arrive at my door so I think that pretty much sums up my opinion on CoD. But, why are people still needing to do this? Why do you have to defend a game you like just because others don't? And a game with a fan base so large you could probably occupy a decent sized country? Not saying the OP is bad or any of you are in the wrong some how but it just all feels a bit unnecessary... But, yeah, I totally agree with all your points.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

d) Who designed the maps for MW2? You bring that guy back. If you can't get him because you fired him, get the guy from COD 2. If you can't get him, don't fucking make a multiplayer mode, because apparently every other developer Activision can hire doesn't have a clue what he's doing.

I would hazard a guess that any people who fulfill either of those qualifications are also the people who Activision attempted to use coercion and extortion against in an attempt to make them continue working without the pay and bonuses they had previously (and contractually) been promised.

Those people are now sat around their swimming pools, driving their nice cars and wondering what else to do with the many millions Activision paid them in that out of court settlement.

Which more or less sums up CoD really, the people who made it a success are gone forever, now you are stuck with what ever's left and the franchise will play out to nothing over the next decade...

I actually wasn't planning to use those excuses. I was going to say that mechanically, it's basically a poor man's Stalker.

Relativism aside, the mechanics encourage really slow gunplay and they are a bit too forgiving. Not to mention that the level design is a bit too restrictive and not easy to maneuver in.

deathbydeath:
I actually wasn't planning to use those excuses. I was going to say that mechanically, it's basically a poor man's Stalker.

I know this isn't quite what you meant, but Call of Duty would be instantly back on my radar if Pseudogiants and Bloodsucker came crashing through the ceiling.

Plus anomalies turning up in multiplayer would be brilliant...

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Jinxzy:
They three types of picking if you want to go support, specialist, and assault. Granted support should have never had stealth boomer, it should be more for helping the team. Also if your a weak player and pick support and go 5-45 and get a UAV I think that makes them feel like they are actually helping and not just a waist on the team.

Oh yeah, lets balance the game around the guy at the bottom of the scoreboard. What a great idea.

Look, I don't give a fuck if not helping your team hurts your feelings. Theres nothing wrong with bad players getting bad results. If you want a super happy fun time for everyone I suggest you join an elementary school and take part in their sport events, but that type of attitude has no place in any competitive multiplayer game.

Jinxzy:
Stopping Power was over powered so they took it out, also Cold Blooded/Ghost. They were getting so over powered they had to dumb them down or get rid of them. Cold Blooded is still in the game it just goes by different names and now it's multiple perks. So in MW3 it would be blind eye and assassin makes cold blooded/ghost. They are actually getting rid of second chance.

Stopping Power was not imbalanced in any way. Cold Blooded and Lightweight were just as good in MW2, Danger Close was even better than all 3.

Stopping Power might seem imbalanced if you suck, because you need that 40% damage increase since you can't aim for shit. For me, someone who was merely a mediocre player most of the time, it was completely unnecessary and I often opted to use Cold Blooded or Lightweight instead.

On top of that, you need Stopping Power to counter Ghost or Cold Blooded. The minimap is an extremely powerful tool in any recent COD game. Nullifying your opponents opportunity to use it is also extremely powerful. Anything less than a straight up damage increase to your guns or your equipment will not tip the scales again.

If you want proof, look at Black Ops. Ghost was still the best perk in that game (apart from maybe TacMask pro) by a fucking mile, even though it was in the same slot as Flak Jacket. Or look at MW3, although the poor balance of the Assassin perk can be accounted to the poor balance of support streaks like the EMP.

Jinxzy:
c) That's for only infinity ward, Treyarchs kill streaks never stack.

What part of "stacking upon death" did you not understand? And just in case you don't know, some of them do stack upon death, meaning Johnny McScrubbyPants will still be pumping out UAVs despite getting 3 deaths for every kill. Also, killstreaks stacked in WaW, a Treyarch game.

Jinxzy:
e) they would never cut the pice if they still have millions paying for the $59.99.

Well, no shit. I was saying that I would like them to do that, not that they would. Just like I would love to fuck Emma Watson. It's not gonna happen, but a man can dream.

Jinxzy:
f) There is no more elite $50 anymore, it's a free service if you would like to use it.

That's nice.

Jinxzy:
g) if your willing to lose a perk to get more attachments fine buy me, In Bops they used warlord and missed out on better perks.

If shoddy balance is fine by you, go right ahead. It stays shoddy balance though.

Jinxzy:
You have to remember that Infinity Ward and Treyarch are two different people with different ideas for CoD, I do prefer Treyarch cause to me they always seem to be taking good steps towards a better and more even CoD. If you play with friends and people that are going to jerks then you can always find fun in any game. I will probably never going to touch the single player but I will be play multiplayer and zombies. It's just a fun shooter to play with friends.

Let's pull Emma back into this, shall we? If I go to a vasectomy with her, that shit might be fun. But it's still a fucking vasectomy. I have good company but the activity stays shit.

To address your point on stopping power, it was indeed an overpowered perk. It gave all players using it a 33.3% damage buff, meaning that anyone who wasn't using stopping power was put at a massive disadvantage when facing someone who was running it. This basically meant chaining your second perk to stopping power, unless running a specialized class for say anti air. You are simply less effective as a player in a gunfight without it.

In regards to Ghost, treyarch did balance it in that you only reaming hidden as long as you remain mobile, as well as splitting the immunity to killstreaks into a different perk in the same tier, essentially forcing you to chose between one and the other.

As for killstreak stacking, it is present in Blops 2 (there is no support or specialist btw). But there's a catch. Killstreaks are now earned via score, for example a UAV costs 300 points. it doesn't matter how you get them, be it through assists or capping flags. So when a lethal killstreak is used, you will still gain points, but at a reduced rate. For example, their equivalent of an ac-130 only awards 25 points per kill instead of the normal 100.

Finally in regards to the campaign, it is a shame you want it cut considering what treyarch is doing with it in blops 2. There is a new series of levels in campaign called strike force missions. You get to select which one you partake in (you cannot do all strike missions in a single run) and you are plunked down into a sandbox with a set of objectives. What really makes it interesting is that you control a force of both human and robotic allies, either through an rts style of gameplay, setting waypoints and targeting enemies, or by assuming direct control of individual units of your choosing. What's more you can actually fail strike force missions, you aren't kicked back to your last checkpoint. You failed to achieve your objective, and that will reflect in one of the multiple endings of the game, as well as wat missions you went on in the first place.

I think most of your arguments are fine OP but I do take issue with the last one. Yeah, you probably aren't stupid, and you probably do just enjoy the game more than me, but the fact is that there are hordes of people throwing money at a company for releasing the same game over and over, all the while the companies that take risks and try to innovate and bring something new to the gaming scene suffer. It just pisses me off is all.

Also, YOU may be intelligent enough to see what is going on, but my friends sure aren't.

Call of duty was fun for me up till Black Ops 1. Loved CoD 1 to MW2. Everything else has been shit, I think. It's a matter of personal opinion, though.

I like Call of Duty, actually. Well, the Treyarch ones. And honestly, it is one of the better online games I've played. Borderlands 1 (haven't played 2 online with someone else hosting) had lag issues, and I only ever found maybe 1 or 2 servers in Duke Nukem Forever that didn't have serious lag issues.

miketehmage:
I think most of your arguments are fine OP but I do take issue with the last one. Yeah, you probably aren't stupid, and you probably do just enjoy the game more than me, but the fact is that there are hordes of people throwing money at a company for releasing the same game over and over, all the while the companies that take risks and try to innovate and bring something new to the gaming scene suffer. It just pisses me off is all.

Also, YOU may be intelligent enough to see what is going on, but my friends sure aren't.

When you think about it, they do change more than most sport games do. Different settings, some different guns, etc. Sure the engine is the same, and they don't change as much as they could, but still more than Madden.

This seems to be a double edged sword, though. Look at how much hate the Final Fantasy series gets, and with the exception of direct sequels (X-2, XIII-2), they change a lot of the game up every time (completely new characters, worlds, story, battle system, etc). Make changes to a game, people bitch that something has changed. Leave it the same, people bitch that they are just putting out the same games over and over again.

I enjoy the multiplayer myself because it's repetitive. I want to just sit down and do something that doesn't need too much thought.

Personally I preferred the CoD 4 system of killstreaks at 3,5 and 7, and I preferred CoD 4's maps to the new ones. But It's still fun.

As to them releasing the same game every year, okay it's pretty similar...but go back and play the old ones and see how they've changed. I've only bought two CoD games, MW3 and WaW. Both preowned and I even got WaW free...if you don't like buying a new game twice a year then you're really not being forced.

One thing I wish they would do would be to keep supporting their old games after they release a new one, WaW has been pretty my taken over by hackers now, CoD 4 probably too...which is sad, because I like those games.

I don't believe you can legitimately criticize a game for its player base, but if I am being honest, I have stopped playing the franchise's multiplayer almost completely because of it. The verbal abuse is mind blowing at times to me, and I distinctly remember an instance in which my entire team began to 'shoot-at' and toss explosives at one of our own just because his ID had 'gay_pride' in it. Allowing voice chat only makes things worse for me.

But again, that only applies to some cases, and in any case it is not exactly a part of the game itself.

I do like the point you raised that a game being 'repetitive' is not a valid argument, unless you're willing to admit the same of some of the better games made.

What I truly dislike about the game is its focus on insubstantial gimicks. I liked the first modern Warfare title a lot, though I knew the sequel would be awful and skipped it. However I gave Black Ops a chance as it was made by a different developer team, so I couldn't make any assumptions right away. Of course, as we all know, what I got was one of the worst gaming experiences of my entire life; nearly everything in the game's campaign is completely arbitrary in nature, like harpooning a helicopter during a prison riot, causing a PSOne quality explosion. Or pulling the pins out of a man's grenades and watching him explode in a quick time event. . Or playing on a multiplayer map so small, absolutely no action could possibly carry any weight. Or making nearly every line of already-awful-dialogue rife with swearing because that's a child's idea of 'maturity'. Etc. Etc.

Fast forward to now, to Black Ops 2, and we see things like horse-back riding sequences, which are surely much akin to the auto-pilot, Tap-R1-To-Proceed motorcycle sequence from the first Black Ops. It's pretty much a guarantee at this point that the levels will be a series of textured blocks to crouch behind and shoot things from, and not even a soundtrack composed by Jack Wall will make it more interesting than the couch you sit on when you play it.

It seems to be all flash, and no substance.

Lucky Godzilla:
To address your point on stopping power, it was indeed an overpowered perk. It gave all players using it a 33.3% damage buff, meaning that anyone who wasn't using stopping power was put at a massive disadvantage when facing someone who was running it. This basically meant chaining your second perk to stopping power, unless running a specialized class for say anti air. You are simply less effective as a player in a gunfight without it.

Your argument would be valid if COD was just 10 people spawning on a completely even and empty field over and over again. Damage is not the only thing that plays into gunfights.

If I manage to flank the enemy with Cold Blooded or Lightweight, something that is easy to do in every COD that had Stopping Power, it doesn't matter what perk he is running in that second perk slot. I am winning that fight. He won't even get a shot off on me, because I'll shoot him in the back.

You are less effective in a straight up gunfight, that is true. However, you are more effective at roaming the map, either by means of speed or stealth. You play to suit your class and suddenly Cold Blooded is doing more for me than Stopping Power will ever do for you, even beyond taking down air support.

For a short while, I was an absolute beast at Call of Duty. My aim was spot on. But that was not what made me a good player. What made me a good player was the ability to read the map and read the spawns. Often Cold Blooded or Lightweight would help me more in playing this style than Stopping Power did.

Lucky Godzilla:
Finally in regards to the campaign, it is a shame you want it cut considering what treyarch is doing with it in blops 2. There is a new series of levels in campaign called strike force missions. You get to select which one you partake in (you cannot do all strike missions in a single run) and you are plunked down into a sandbox with a set of objectives. What really makes it interesting is that you control a force of both human and robotic allies, either through an rts style of gameplay, setting waypoints and targeting enemies, or by assuming direct control of individual units of your choosing. What's more you can actually fail strike force missions, you aren't kicked back to your last checkpoint. You failed to achieve your objective, and that will reflect in one of the multiple endings of the game, as well as wat missions you went on in the first place.

Well, two things.

One: if I feel like playing an RTS I will look to Starcraft or Total War. I doubt Black Ops 2 will do it better than either of those games. Remember that town building thing in Assassins Creed 2? Remember how fucking stupid it was, because while it was something to do, it just felt like a really, really shitty version of AoE? That's what I imagine strike missions will be like. Sure, I can take control of singular units, which is nice, but I don't see that being enough of a saving grace.

Two: assuming these strike missions actually turn out to be great, which I will admit is a possibility, they will probably be a lone highlight in a mess of scripted events involving collapsing buildings and a lot of damn explosions. We have seen enough of the campaign to know that Treyarch don't want you to play the campaign, they want you to watch the campaign. Say it is 8 hours long - a generous estimation - 3 hours of strike force missions will not make up for 5 hours of ridiculous plot twists and linear pop up shooting. I am fed up of the COD style of campaign (shoot Russians/Chinese/terrorists from some brown country nobody cares about, witness big explosion, shoot more terrorists, scripted event in which you defuse a bomb by holding the "W" button, then holding the "F" button, another 5 minutes of walking down corridors, another scripted event, etc...). Allow me to use Yahtzees favorite term here. Juxtaposition. Strike missions will not fix this.

The main issue I have with COD and I am sure this is more what people complain about when they complain about what COD is doing to the industry is the yearly sequels. It has shown the industry that they can make a successful game and then release it multiple times with nothing more than a few changes that could have been DLC or even just a patch.

One other thing you do hear about COD every year, often in reviews is the quote it makes tweaks to the formula but it is still the COD you know or something along the lines of that and that just isn't good enough for a sequel.

ImmortalDrifter:

"It's only played by 10-year-olds"

This argument is pulled with most online shooters, I agree, it's stupid.

"CoD is full of Racist/Sexist/Stupid people"

That is very much a cop out argument, considering the fact that CoD as a series over all has the highest concentration of sexists, if anything else. I can't say much for the other stuff, that's reasonably spread throughtout the internet, but CoD as a series has ALWAYS had a sexist following, more so than most other games.

"It's repetitive"

First of all, TF2 updates quite a bit. It is repetitive, but at least it gives you a new place to go every few weeks. It has a nicer community, Valve has a decent relationship with it's fans, and the characters are more interesting than anyone in CoD. Secondly, just because other games are repetitive doesn't give CoD a free pass to be so damn repetitive over the course of the entire goddamned series just because it takes the Flak.

"It started the Modern Shooter market saturation"

Well no, we can be angry at Cod, because instead of using it's position of power and knowing that people will try to ape it, it hasn't changed its very formulaic chestpounding routine at all in it's entire series, thus leading to it cloning itself again and again, then the clones being spawned into the many series trying to make a quick buck. It's not its fault that it was copied, but it is it's fault that we've have so many shitty fps'.

"It's the same game every year"

I'm sorry, but how is any of what you've said a good thing? You've just pointed out your own sheepish mentality into spending 60 bucks a year for the exact same thing you spent 60 bucks on last year, just with a few extra bells and whistles? This isn't a strong argument, this actually shows the kind of instant gratification mentality that keeps these games from ever shaking up the formula and trying something interesting.

The biggest problem that I have with CoD is, quite simply, the campaign. At least after the first Modern Warfare, I cannot say that any CoD game has had a solid campaign. They are so poorly written, so bat-shit insane and lacking in any semblance of so-called realism that it reduces the entire series (which had potential) to nothing more than ludicrous set pieces involving a bunch of faceless nobodies that we don't care about. When I say that it lacks realism, I do know that these games are not meant to be realistic (few games could do that). However, we should be taking issue with the fact that thousands of people heap so much praise on it for being "realistic", when it is not. And that so-called realism completely juxtaposes the ridiculousness of what is happening on screen that I cannot loses myself in the experience like I could in MW1. If the games after MW1 were parodies, they might work a little better; Alas, they are not and they do not.

Oh, and Infinity Ward, just because a little girl died does not mean that I have to care. That was the worst display of shallow manipulation that I have ever seen in a video game and everybody who works there should feel ashamed of themselves. Thanks MW3!

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

This is a nearly perfect summary of my thoughts on the subject.
I've been a fan of CoD games since I got my hands on the demo for the first game, although the 2nd one was the first full game I got. So far I'm in the "every other game is good" camp, having spent most of my time in CoD2, 4 and 6(MW2).
I will never take CoD "seriously" as an FPS as I've grown up with games like Counter-Strike and Quake as the serious competitive big-shots, but the CoD games have been incredibly fun over the years and MW2 got the fun formula nearly bang on. Especially the maps, the MW2 maps were awesome and the biggest let-down with MW3 for me was the maps; in my opinion they are all terrible. Saying "in my opinion" is a bit redundant, but other people apparently love the game, including my friend who's been my brother-in-CoD in MW and MW2. Map design is something I don't really know much about so I can't say much of value about them, but it feels as if they lack choke points at least.

And yeah, just too much stuff. The Barebones modes in MW2 were great, but they never had any players when the game was still relevant, now that MW3 is out and BO2 on the doorstep it's completely dead.

I so wish they just polished the MW2 MP because with most games you can say "oh, the old games don't go away", but in this case they do: The only reason I play CoD games is the multiplayer, and while you can still find decent CoD4 servers the MW2 playerbase is pretty much gone.

My biggest issue with CoD isn't to do with the game itself, but more the community that it seems to attract.

Sure, there are people out there who play CoD and are genuinely good people, playing fairly and behaving, but it seems like every time I go on MW3's multiplayer, I encounter people swearing at each other and/or a hacker.

And not a subtle hacker either. I'm talking people who sit 30 feet in the air and coat the entire map with RPG rounds.

Or people that cause the enemy team to spawn 30 feet in the air and fall to their deaths constantly.

Or people that throw 20+ grenades/C4 non-stop.

Or people that call in AC-130s non-stop.

Seriously. The PC version of MW3 is ruined by the very people that play it. I've encountered more hackers in a 30 minute session of it than I have in, say, 300+ hours of TF2.

Hmm... Balanced views, for the most part. I'll say that I'm an occasional fan of some aspects, and I do buy it yearly, but I won't pay for another Modern Warfare. I'll get Treyarch's every 2. I use multiplayer as an interactive Facebook. I joke around with a few friends, have some fun with some ludicrous guns (like that under-mount flamethrower. It's so hard to use, it's fun!) and torment those with ignorant attitudes. I like to think I'm good with accents, so I pretend to be Irish for one match, Scottish for another Jamaican the next, and so on. It really fucks with people. And it weeds out the racists so I can headhunt them.

The reason why CoD needs to stop is because of genre fatiuge.

Its happened to fighters, RTS, space sim, and 4X, i wouldnt be surprised if within the next few years that one of the 5 CoD studios will fuck it up in a big way and it will put the entire FPS genre under for a few years while everyone worth a shit moves onto the various strains of RPG and MOBA.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked