Let's talk about Call of Duty

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

It's a game made for as cheap as possible to make as much money as possible and to appeal to as many people as possible.

People like it, that's the point.

It's not my type of game, but, I can see why people would buy into it, it's kinda what Activision Blizzard is going for with the series.

It is not a great game, it does not deserve the accolades and lofting it gets.

It's not a poorly made game, there's nothing "Wrong" with it, but, "Being fun to a lot of people" does not make something great.

For me, CoD represents a lot of what is wrong with the industry.

It's popular therefore it's taboo for anyone in any position to state anything negative or "Not great" about the game, you'll either be hounded by fan boys for saying that the game isn't the second coming of christ, or fired by the company you work for due to the bad press being negative of a popular game brings.

It's popular, so almost every other significant publisher tries to make their own version to take some part of the market. Every shooter has to conform to certain standards, it has to have classes, it has to load outs, we're even getting to the stage where not having ADS is a negative trait.

And worst of all, it's almost entirely stagnant. It does nothing new, rarely does it even try to for fear of slight alienation that might reduce it's profit margins, it's a game made by scared developers on the command of scared publishers, fearing that even the slightest bit of innovation may cost them even the smallest cent.

So, I guess a lot of my issues are from the business practices around the company that makes this game.

I played MW2, it was okay, nothing special. I had "Fun" if that's what you what, I later moved on to PC games and lost interest in console oriented shooters, but, I had some fun when I played it.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

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.

Your score streak resets when you die, but if you have acquired something like a deathmachine you get to use every round in it even if you die before that.

Lucky Godzilla:

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.

Well not exactly but it does take three points.

On topic: I think people who don't play Cod almost at all aren't really in the position to say how copy-pasted they are. As someone who has put a lot of time in every Cod since MW I could instantly tell them apart based on graphical style, weapons, maps, animation, and yes, graphical quality. Also, every Cod I've played has been quite different compared to others. If there's anything wrong with the series, it's the overpriced DLC, horrible single player and catering to noobs and "casuals" with autoaim, deathstreaks, zero recoil etc.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

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.

You may have missed the fact that you do not have to control it like an RTS, you can select and jump between any of your units at any time. If you want to play the entire mission as a grunt, go ahead you can do it, if you want to jump around all of your units, playing as a flying drone one second and a walking tank the next, you can do it. And of course you can play it all from the perspective of an rts. As for the rest of the campaign, I think it is best to reserve judgement for when the game is released.

Going back to stopping power, the real issue is that when two people start shooting at each other at the same time, the winner should go to the person with the better aim right? That's not the case with stopping power, with it you can afford to be sloppy as the increased damage will compensate for lack of skill.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

After reading this post and a few of the ones following it, I have only 1 thing to say:

Fucking spot on.

Stopping power was great for when I felt like being loud. When I wanted quiet, I had a stealth setup where I could literally lay behind a corner and watch 4 people run by me because that "ENEMY UAV IS ONLINE" phrase that you hear oh so very often dictates that their entire team now has their eyes glued to that minimap like 2 buddies screen peeking off each other in a split screen game.

I fucking loved it.

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

Oh hey, I like playing the CoD games almost purely for the single player as well... I generally suck at multiplayer (and hell, I suck at the single player as well) thanks to being colour blind, so the amount of times the screen has fuzzed because of friendly fire is ridiculous.

Anyway, what this guy said...

Though I'll add that I enjoy the games for another reason: the soundtrack. Seriously, MW2 is all the more enjoyable to me because I've got Hans Zimmer rockin' it in the background!

why are we defending CoD again?

it seems to be doing just fine despite the hate people lob at it.

that said, you couldn't PAY ME enough to want that crap on my system

Assassin Xaero:

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.

Yeah that's a fair point. I think then that maybe the problem is releasing the games as frequently as they do, and maybe they should strive to find a balance between making too few or too many changes. I just think that CoD peaked at CoD 4 and I feel like it has been milked ever since.

As far as the campaigns go, the direction that these games are taking, with cutscenes, scripted events, corridor to corridor level design, is the exact opposite of what they should be doing, because it's the player skill, input and decision making that separates games from other media. Game shouldn't try to become more like movies.

For all the bitching we do about modern RPGs, modern mainstream FPS is also complete and joke as a genre and a shell of it's former self.

Crazy question, but I was considering getting black ops 2, is it worth it? I have no real intention of playing multi-player.

The last shooter I got was Modern warfare 2. I thought it was fun for the most part, but the story was laughingly bad.

Basically I am wondering if black ops 2 is a good bet, or is there another game on the horizon? Can one fly/drive vehicles in black ops 2?

SpectacularWebHead:
Snip

Thanks man, you have given the exact kind of comment that drove me to make this thread in the first place.

Please present proof that CoD is more sexist than anywhere else on the net. Are the mechanics of the game sexist? Does it offer sexists/misogynists some kind of special treatment?

TF2 is always the same maps, with the same characters, and the same gamemodes. I still play TF2 almost every week and I have the balls to admit that it's the same game every time I play it. Just because it's valve doesn't mean it gets a free pass.

How exactly does CoD abuse it's power? People like playing it so they make more of it? Has that stopped being basic business strategy while I wasn't looking? Also your logic makes absolutely no sense. How is CoD responsible for creating series by developers that have nothing to do with Activision or IW/Treyarch? If you wrote a bestseller should I be mad at you for the choices of other authors to parrot your work?

Lastly, did you even read the damn paragraph I wrote? Where the hell do you get off calling me sheepish for spending my money on things I enjoy? It's isn't instant gratification or any other cop-out pretentious statement. (ADHD, Aspergers, Autistic whatever) I enjoy CoD, when I stop enjoying it I'll stop paying for it.

mavkiel:
Crazy question, but I was considering getting black ops 2, is it worth it? I have no real intention of playing multi-player.

The last shooter I got was Modern warfare 2. I thought it was fun for the most part, but the story was laughingly bad.

Basically I am wondering if black ops 2 is a good bet, or is there another game on the horizon? Can one fly/drive vehicles in black ops 2?

I'll try to answer this to the best of my ability. Treyarch announced that there would be changes to the campaign structure (free roaming missions etc), the story looks interesting (the military might of the modern world turned against itself), and you will get to ride horses and use robots. I'm hoping for the best but expecting the worst lol. If it doesn't strike your fancy, Farcry is a good-looking shooter out in the near future. Bioshock: Infinite will be out in Feb and it's looking pretty sweet. Doom 4 is also a prospect for the future.

You make some very good points, sir, to arguments which I've often heard, though never used. I actually quite like Call of Duty, and am looking forward to Black Ops 2. I barely touch the multiplayer, but the campaign is always dumb fun, and the survival mode from MW3 kept me coming back for more due to its addictiveness and great level design. Say what you will about CoD games, but they're always very polished games, and I'm not ashamed to admit I'm quite fond of them.

Lucky Godzilla:
Going back to stopping power, the real issue is that when two people start shooting at each other at the same time, the winner should go to the person with the better aim right? That's not the case with stopping power, with it you can afford to be sloppy as the increased damage will compensate for lack of skill.

No. COD multiplayer has never been like that, it never tried to be like that, and it shouldn't try to be like that. If you want a game that placed value on aim over everything else, theres Quake.

And again, about the skill - aim doesn't count for much in COD. Only a bad player engages in fair, one on one gunfights in COD games. Cold Blooded/Ghost is just as powerful if not more powerful, I've stated why numerous times now. If you still don't understand, then sorry, but you probably aren't that good at COD.

Hey, you might like it, and that is fine, but don't expect me to respect the game series. Because I find it quite hard too. COD to me is like fast food; fine every once in a while, but it isn't healthy to indulge in all the time and it really isn't of the best quality. :P

BreakfastMan:
Hey, you might like it, and that is fine, but don't expect me to respect the game series. Because I find it quite hard too. COD to me is like fast food; fine every once in a while, but it isn't healthy to indulge in all the time and it really isn't of the best quality. :P

Well honestly man, if you don't care for it that's fine. I'm just saying for the love of god don't assume that everyone who plays it is a misogynistic 12-year-old.

My main beef is that it still tried to pass itself off as an FPS rather than an arena shooter. The only real strategy I've seen in it is spawn working out the most efficient way to spawn trap the enemy. I basically just put it in the same list as TF and CS. Not a fan of arena shooters, and I dislike arena shooters that try to pass themselves off as full-blown FPSs even more.

Although without this FPS poser the CoD community would simply find other games to help ruin.

DISCLAIMER: Yes I know every game has dickheads. CoD just has more and has absolutely no way of dealing with them. Infact, I'd say it even promotes being a fuckwit.

ImmortalDrifter:

BreakfastMan:
Hey, you might like it, and that is fine, but don't expect me to respect the game series. Because I find it quite hard too. COD to me is like fast food; fine every once in a while, but it isn't healthy to indulge in all the time and it really isn't of the best quality. :P

Well honestly man, if you don't care for it that's fine. I'm just saying for the love of god don't assume that everyone who plays it is a misogynistic 12-year-old.

That isn't exactly a defense of the game, though. That is a defense of those who play the game. And anyone with any sense already knows that not everyone who plays a certain game is a raging asshole (otherwise, strategy fans would be universally reviled). So, basically you are defending COD from strawmen. And strawmen can't really do anything because they are made of straw. :P

CpT_x_Killsteal:
My main beef is that it still tried to pass itself off as an FPS rather than an arena shooter. The only real strategy I've seen in it is spawn working out the most efficient way to spawn trap the enemy. I basically just put it in the same list as TF and CS. Not a fan of arena shooters, and I dislike arena shooters that try to pass themselves off as full-blown FPSs even more.

Although without this FPS poser the CoD community would simply find other games to help ruin.

DISCLAIMER: Yes I know every game has dickheads. CoD just has more and has absolutely no way of dealing with them. Infact, I'd say it even promotes being a fuckwit.

What exactly is a "full-blown" fps? And how would you reason that it promotes being a dick? I've never seen any double XP weekends for people with shitloads of bad player reviews. Also, of course CoD has more, it's the most popular. That's not even defending CoD it's basic math.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

1) They should either cut the campaign or force the entire studio to play COD 1&2. The campaigns have ALL been terrible since that point, with the exception of WaW, which was merely competent. And yes, you heard that right, I didn't like COD 4's campaign at all. Wow, you got nuked. And what about all the other stuff? Oh, right, terrorists are here, you go there, shoot brown people, nuke, patriotic music, the end. People who praise COD 4's campaign while critizising MW3's in the same breath piss me off, if you claim to love one but despise the other you are just trying to look cool.

Yep, it can't be because they have actual, legitimate reasons to dislike one over the other. They are obviously just trying to be all cool and hip. Those silly people, having different opinions than you. They must be being disingenuous, obviously. There is no other option. -_-

Also, ooh, those sweet, sweet Undistributed Middle fallacies...

i like call of duty, i just don't buy them anymore because the MP is reset every year in November for features that could have easily been added with DLC. everything that has been done to the MP since cod4 could have easily been done with DLC and they could have sold new campaigns as even more DLC.

and yes i buy new total war games every year but even there the fatigue has set in and with those games they at least try to mix up the gameplay by changing around the time period so you use different units.
on that note: make a cod that makes bolt-action rifles the main weapon again and we can talk

BreakfastMan:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

1) They should either cut the campaign or force the entire studio to play COD 1&2. The campaigns have ALL been terrible since that point, with the exception of WaW, which was merely competent. And yes, you heard that right, I didn't like COD 4's campaign at all. Wow, you got nuked. And what about all the other stuff? Oh, right, terrorists are here, you go there, shoot brown people, nuke, patriotic music, the end. People who praise COD 4's campaign while critizising MW3's in the same breath piss me off, if you claim to love one but despise the other you are just trying to look cool.

Yep, it can't be because they have actual, legitimate reasons to dislike one over the other. They are obviously just trying to be all cool and hip. Those silly people, having different opinions than you. They must be being disingenuous, obviously. There is no other option. -_-

Also, ooh, those sweet, sweet Undistributed Middle fallacies...

Well then, explain why COD4's campaign is good while MW3's is shit, despite both being almost identical in terms of mechanics.

ImmortalDrifter:

CpT_x_Killsteal:
My main beef is that it still tried to pass itself off as an FPS rather than an arena shooter. The only real strategy I've seen in it is spawn working out the most efficient way to spawn trap the enemy. I basically just put it in the same list as TF and CS. Not a fan of arena shooters, and I dislike arena shooters that try to pass themselves off as full-blown FPSs even more.

Although without this FPS poser the CoD community would simply find other games to help ruin.

DISCLAIMER: Yes I know every game has dickheads. CoD just has more and has absolutely no way of dealing with them. Infact, I'd say it even promotes being a fuckwit.

What exactly is a "full-blown" fps? And how would you reason that it promotes being a dick? I've never seen any double XP weekends for people with shitloads of bad player reviews. Also, of course CoD has more, it's the most popular. That's not even defending CoD it's basic math.

By "full-blown" I mean that it has actually set about a way of expanding itself. Take BF or any of it's ilk (NO I'M NOT A FANBOY I DON'T PLAY IT ANYMORE LEAVE ME ALONE), they get bigger, there are more obstacles to overcome, and much more VARIETY. Variety is a key aspect in and FPS and is there to stop it from becoming too repetitive and to help it evolve.

Where as CoD is more like an arena shooter, like GoW, TF2 and CS. It focuses on tinkering with the guns and in CoD's case, air support, and pretty much nothing else. Not new challenges or ways to overcome them, not new strategies or creative opportunities for players to come up with or take advantage of. Just run around in circles shooting people and hope your team is better at it than the other team. Oh, and try not to get spawn trapped.

So anyways, that's why I classify it as an arena shooter rather than a "full-blown" FPS.

And by more dickheads, I mean a higher ratio of dickheads to non-dickheads.

How does it promote dick-headism? Well here's an easy one. Care-Packages. Your team mates will almost always try to steal even if it's right in front of you. If you die, they won't defend it, they'll just take it. Of course you could argue that it's better than the enemy getting it, but when you spawn 20m away from it, it's being a douchebag, nothing more.

Trapping people in corners. Holy fucking hell. It's happened to me so many times and I've seen it on YouTube so many times it's ridiculous. And there's the ridiculous spawn-tubing aswell to take into account.

Well that's it for the top of my head, please keep in mind that even with all the swearing I'm not using an angry tone of voice or anything.

ImmortalDrifter:

SpectacularWebHead:
Snip

Thanks man, you have given the exact kind of comment that drove me to make this thread in the first place.

Please present proof that CoD is more sexist than anywhere else on the net. Are the mechanics of the game sexist? Does it offer sexists/misogynists some kind of special treatment?

Dude, Cod is marketed at guys. Because it is marketed SOLELY at guys, not in any way, shape or form at girl gamers, you can assume there's gonna be a lot more sexism than it's nearest competitor, Which is I think Halo... Not sure about sales, but assuming it is halo, Whilst the main character is a dude, you at least have some interesting female characters in it, and, You get a helluva a lot more girls playing halo than cod WITHOUT any abuse. As for providing you proof, I can't because I don't work in the gaming industry, and therefore have no kind of access to statistics. All I can tell you is the observation of Cod's community, coupled with it's marketing techniques in relation to other shooters, so yes, in a way, misogynist do get special treatment, because nothing is done about them, because people like you just say "Well, that's the internet for ya". Also, please tell me how you can make a sexist game mechanic, because you're just being silly now. The CoD community are largely up there with 4chan in levels of offensiveness. Just saying "Welcome to the internet" Doesn't make it okay.

TF2 is always the same maps, with the same characters, and the same gamemodes. I still play TF2 almost every week and I have the balls to admit that it's the same game every time I play it. Just because it's valve doesn't mean it gets a free pass.

Well no, because you get updates, Backstory and a metric-shit ton of other stuff that makes TF2 more interesting. If you're playing on console, fair enough, they have never updated it and never will, but there's more intrigue to TF2 than cod. Fuck, just the use of bright colours as opposed to grey, brown and very rarely, blue is enough to keep you interested.

How exactly does CoD abuse it's power? People like playing it so they make more of it? Has that stopped being basic business strategy while I wasn't looking? Also your logic makes absolutely no sense. How is CoD responsible for creating series by developers that have nothing to do with Activision or IW/Treyarch? If you wrote a bestseller should I be mad at you for the choices of other authors to parrot your work?

I've explained that already. As CoD is what everyone tries to be, we only get the same shitty brown shooter over and over. If CoD was willing to try something new and interesting, it would likely spur all the other companies copying it into doing something different and interesting. And, as you have proved, taking a risk wouldn't hurt their sales in the slightest, because so many people would buy it just because "It's CoD Braaah!" It's not the fault of other developers, becaus ethey are just following your oh so grand marketing strategy, thus leading us into this tidal wave of crap shooters, which is started at it's root, by CoD, the game your game could smell like.

Lastly, did you even read the damn paragraph I wrote? Where the hell do you get off calling me sheepish for spending my money on things I enjoy? It's isn't instant gratification or any other cop-out pretentious statement. (ADHD, Aspergers, Autistic whatever) I enjoy CoD, when I stop enjoying it I'll stop paying for it.

I get off calling you sheepish, because in your paragraph, you express your sheep like mentality because you know that very little is added to CoD each year, yet you still spend 60 bucks on what you know is 2 new gametypes and 10 new maps. You buy what you yourself have even said is basically the same game every year because you Enjoy it, but what you don't seem to realise is, you could stick with whichever one came out THIS year instead of wasting $60 on changes that are covered in DLC for most other games. THAT is why I view your mentality as sheep-like. You're following the crowd despite knowing it's unneccesary.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

By "full-blown" I mean that it has actually set about a way of expanding itself. Take BF or any of it's ilk (NO I'M NOT A FANBOY I DON'T PLAY IT ANYMORE LEAVE ME ALONE), they get bigger, there are more obstacles to overcome, and much more VARIETY. Variety is a key aspect in and FPS and is there to stop it from becoming too repetitive and to help it evolve.

You'll probably disagree (I've not played much Battefield/Operation Flashpoint/Ghost Recon so...), but I think Domination, Sabotage and Domination (maybe not so much Capture the Flag) go a little bit towards variety; admittedly there's only one point for each team on each map, and one more for domination, so that's kind of a shot in the foot for variety.

It's a tiny step towards variety though, I'll admit that much; and it's kind of a shame that deathmatches are by far the most popular multiplayer gamemode, but maybe that's just personal taste.

SpectacularWebHead:

I get off calling you sheepish, because in your paragraph, you express your sheep like mentality because you know that very little is added to CoD each year, yet you still spend 60 bucks on what you know is 2 new gametypes and 10 new maps. You buy what you yourself have even said is basically the same game every year because you Enjoy it, but what you don't seem to realise is, you could stick with whichever one came out THIS year instead of wasting $60 on changes that are covered in DLC for most other games. THAT is why I view your mentality as sheep-like. You're following the crowd despite knowing it's unneccesary.

No, that would imply that he buys it because everyone else does.

If he's making the decision to buy it because it satisfies his needs, he is making that decision himself, not following the crowd.

PieBrotherTB:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

By "full-blown" I mean that it has actually set about a way of expanding itself. Take BF or any of it's ilk (NO I'M NOT A FANBOY I DON'T PLAY IT ANYMORE LEAVE ME ALONE), they get bigger, there are more obstacles to overcome, and much more VARIETY. Variety is a key aspect in and FPS and is there to stop it from becoming too repetitive and to help it evolve.

You'll probably disagree (I've not played much Battefield/Operation Flashpoint/Ghost Recon so...), but I think Domination, Sabotage and Domination (maybe not so much Capture the Flag) go a little bit towards variety; admittedly there's only one point for each team on each map, and one more for domination, so that's kind of a shot in the foot for variety.

It's a tiny step towards variety though, I'll admit that much; and it's kind of a shame that deathmatches are by far the most popular multiplayer gamemode, but maybe that's just personal taste.

Well that is true, but to me it just seems like shooting each other in a a few specified areas, rather than in random places around the map.

I'm surprised no one has said this but

image

OT: COD just doesn't appeal too much to me. I think it is because I don't actually like MMS's like COD or Battlefield too much. As such, I just find most things about that genre distasteful and generally ruin the genre for me.

Captcha: she loves him

CpT_x_Killsteal:
done been snipped

Well that is true, but to me it just seems like shooting each other in a a few specified areas, rather than in random places around the map.[/quote]

I get what you mean, I can sort of understand from a design standpoint why they'd want to create points with no distinct advantage for one side; but in theory it just makes it a little bland.

I 'unno, I don't think I've played it enough for it to get over-familiar (that and I haven't played many more tactical FPSes), I can see that happening, though.

I think the general opinion of CoD would be that, for all the money it makes and the market share that it has, it should be more than it ultimately is.

If there's one thing I don't like about the recent CoD games, it's all those scripted events.

And it's becoming so frigging predictable too, at least when playing the modern warfare series. Oh, what's that? I have to go and run to this helicopter and mow down Communists (Note: I know Russians aren't communists anymore)? Surely this means the helicopter is not gonna crash, right?

Oh, a truck just arrived to save the VIP that I've been protecting? Game won't continue until I open the back door? Well, let me just go and... well, I'll be! The big bad guy just surprised and killed me. How many times do I have to watch through a scene where the guy I'm playing is helplessly killed? On the other hand, how many times can you realistically survive a helicopter/car/train crash or fall down ludicrously tall distances.

All in all, I don't think these are bad games, but the single player campaigns leave something to be desired.

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

So why weigh in at all? Don't just post to boost your post count or whatever, that was pointless.

OT: Those may be basically invalid complaints. The complaints such as MW2 being one of the most unbalanced online games I can think of, BlOps literally killing sniping, and MW3 being functionally the same game as MW2 while adding a load of unnecessary killstreak bullshit are completely valid.

My main beefs with the series are that it *still* uses the bloody Quake 3 engine, yes it may run well of older systems, I can get behind that line of thinking, but it still looks naff and tacking on newer rendering trickery will only polish the turd so far.

Matchmaking is a horrible idea, always has been a horrible idea, always will be a horrible idea. When you have to add mountains of interpolation and prediction to a multiplayer game to compensate for choosing Little Jimmy and his 1 meg broadband line to host the match while he torrents porn and streams music, then you've destroyed any vestige of "skill" that may be behind a shot because the game guesses where your shots went. And then Jimmy gets upset because he's losing and quits. Cue host migration! Yaaay...

You've also wasted valuable time and resources that could have gone into making a solid client/server set-up developing that and the IWNet shite which is probably even less secure than dedicated servers with no way to actively regulate misbehaving players, leaving everyone else powerless and frustrated while some toolbag with a dodgy CD-key ruins a match with cheats/trolling/unpleasant behaviour etc.

/rant off

You can't use the sports analogy for Call of Duty. The actually real life sports game doesn't change save for the players. The rules are set. For a shooter game that you had five years to change the formula and you don't, there isn't any excuse save for your own lack of creativity.

ImmortalDrifter:

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!

Actually, I got into Call of Duty from playing Splitscreen local with my brother, and I liked it so much that I picked up a few of them and played them just for the singleplayer as well. In fact, the Modern Warfare games play out as a satire of conspiracy movies where every US, British, and Russian soldier is the bastard lovechild of Jason Bourne and Wolverine.

And once I described it that way to a few people, they thought it was awesome.

The only reason I never got into the multiplayer was because until recently I could find no way to play it without installing Steam. Now I can, and I'm loving it.

I can get killed 15 times in a minute by a wallhacker in MW3, and I'm having a much more enjoyable time than being gunned down in Team Fortress 2.

wickedmonkey:
My main beefs with the series are that it *still* uses the bloody Quake 3 engine, yes it may run well of older systems, I can get behind that line of thinking, but it still looks naff and tacking on newer rendering trickery will only polish the turd so far.

Holy shit, really? I thought they were using the Unreal Engine. It's Quake 3?!

Then again, endlessly re-using an outdated game engine is not a practice unique to Infinity Ward...

i guess i don't like Cod because I'm biased against Military shooters i mean I used to like one Cod 4 to be exact i fell out with them because the SP became so weak and repetitive always running and hiding behind chest high walls Ive got nothing against MP i meen i still love the Mass effect 3 MP but i still think that the single Player should always be the main focus

I don't buy many FPSs at all, Call of Duty included, because it's just not the type of game that interests me. The multiplayer is fun to mess around with every once in a while with friends, but I'm not going to pay for just that. Gimme a nice third person action/adventure over a military FPS any day.

Still, though, a lot of people do love Call of Duty and I'm in no position to think myself any better than them because of it.

Also World at War is the greatest CoD ever and any other opinion is wrong just saying :D

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked