Let's talk about Call of Duty

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Cod? I'm not a big fan of Cod. I much prefer Haddock!

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

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.

I wouldn't know, I haven't played any more than the first two missions or so of MW3's. It just seemed incredibly disingenuous to me to outright insult those who had different opinions than yours, claiming that they were not as valuable for no other reason than their opinions were different. Not good form, makes you look like a bit of a bigot.

I personally just don't like COD since my preferred style of FPS are usually team, class and objective based. Examples of this include but are not limited to 1) Wolfenstein Enemy Territory 2) Quake Wars Enemy Territory. It's just a shame SD messed up Brink so much because it looked so promising. So I guess my resentment towards the PC FPS genre at the moment comes from the fact that there is very little choice at the moment, unless you like Modern FPS shooters that focus on death match that is, and of course there is the whole Console to PC ports too that developers so shamelessly bundle PC gamers with.

SO yeah I'd like to see more games like this:

I like CoD. It has a multiplayer I can easily jump into with my friends. The single player is full of specticles that I enjoy, sure it's not long but I don't feel it needs to be. I buy each game because for me they change enough to warrent the price tag. Sure you might not see the changes, but then I never saw the changes between Assassins Creed 2 and Brotherhood or even the Mario games. Games in a series don't change a hell of a lot because they're normally built on the same formular that works.

CoD does what it wants to well. Ofcouse it's single player doesn't compare to Skyrim, but it doesn't try to. It's a fun game that adds to my balanced diet of gaming.

aguspal:

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.

Ehh not really. The big difference is that while Call of Duty has a few new things each time most of the weapons, perks and killstreaks are carried over from previous games, whereas in Total War very little if anything is carried over between new instalments (not counting direct sequels like Medieval 2, but these are years apart from their originals so naturally don't get the same amount of grief). Maps I'll give you, but from what I can tell a lot of the old ones seem to feature in DLC packs anyway, which probably only adds to the argument against it.

Again, I can see where he's coming from, but it's not really the same.

I was a fan of Black Ops Zombies, especially the changes they made to it through the DLCs. Don't care for the multiplayer much, and the campaigns only can be good.

The obvious standpoint (that I'm sure has been said) is that it needs to either slow down or just come to a stop. It sells absurdly well, and every other big name publisher wants to sell that much to please investors, or whatever. So, they limit their developers to make something that looks like it, to appeal to those of whom who do like it,. And when that happens, when all the games we have are just knock offs of loosely justified war-propaganda, I wonder why people look down on the developers, fans, and the medium as a whole.

Millions upon millions of dollars and the spawn system never was improved.

Jamieson 90:
I personally just don't like COD since my preferred style of FPS are usually team, class and objective based. Examples of this include but are not limited to 1) Wolfenstein Enemy Territory 2) Quake Wars Enemy Territory. It's just a shame SD messed up Brink so much because it looked so promising. So I guess my resentment towards the PC FPS genre at the moment comes from the fact that there is very little choice at the moment, unless you like Modern FPS shooters that focus on death match that is, and of course there is the whole Console to PC ports too that developers so shamelessly bundle PC gamers with.

SO yeah I'd like to see more games like this:

I completely agree about Brink, it was a shame it had to flop rather epically. But it's like I said, if it's personal taste then I understand. I'm not about to rage because you don't like Cod.

CpT_x_Killsteal:
snip

Well what I'm gathering at this point is pretty obvious that you just don't like CoD for it's gameplay and are flogging it for unrelated stuff. BF3 was in no way an evolution from BC2 or even BF2. If you don't like CoD that's fine, no need to get so defensive. But there are just as many asshats in BF3, how many vehicle camping, jet stealing, base raping douchebags have you seen? There's no difference in dicks, I assure you.

Yeah, in general most of what I see on the more reasonable areas of the Internet, I.E: here, is a "This is why I don't like CoD", not a "This is why CoD is bad" using those arguments.

The other variation is "This is why CoD shouldn't get a 10/10 review score", which IMO is damn justified. Review scores shouldn't go by what's popular/who's paying more, but by the game itself, and preferably not be a "I really love this game so 10/10" sort of review, nor a "I hate this game so 2/10" review. That's getting more into the review side of things though, and that's an entirely different argument.

So, basically, you're mostly preaching to the converted.

Most people here I'd assume are like myself - won't go out of their way to call CoD bad, unless someone comes along and tells you that CoD is great and it really shouldn't get so much hate from the community, and its obvious everyone only hates it because its popular - or other people that act like the game is gods gift to man. We do it for every game when a fanboy says such things though, so its not like we're singling out CoD on this. We just don't like the game, but we don't hold it against the people that do.

If you were looking for the audience of people that go out of their way to bag CoD and blame it for everything wrong in the gaming industry, Youtube is only a short click away.

my thoughts on the matter. each year they change a couple of things usually very small and add at least 1 new feature sometimes good sometimes bad but when they change things it isn't quite enough to justify making a new game over it also i just find the call of duty series boring i cant get more than a couple hours out of each. personally i think they should take a year or two off from the series really work hard on the next one than release it see what the studios do with a bit more development time.

1 & 2, fair enough. People tend to remember 10-year olds because they have mics and are obnoxious. But neither of these are criticisms of the game.

3. Every game is repetitive to an extent. Pretty much all multiplayer is. Perhaps CoD's multiplayer more than some others because of the prevalence of the metagame, everyone knows what guns to use and deviating doesn't often reward average players. However it is repetitive as series and repetitive in single player. Basically I call single player repetitive the more linear it is. In CoD's case that amounts to a lot of repetitiveness, which I dislike.

4. Market saturation. I can't blame CoD for this. I wish it would be more innovative for the culture's sake, but it doesn't have to. I think there's a certain obligation that comes with being the market leader, but hey, publishers are bitches and devs gotta live. I blame publishers and developers of other games.

5. Same game every year. See 3.

Basically, the only thing on here that is a criticism of the game itself is that it is doesn't change much. Which I agree with. And I think that while it probably should change, for its own eventual sake if not the industry's, it doesn't have to. I just won't buy it.

One of my actual criticisms is of the spawn system and how the multiplayer is pretty much based around how to lock people in their spawn most effectively. There is science done on that s***. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and say most of the problems I have with CoD's multiplayer are due to it being popular and the metagame being so heavily applied.

ImmortalDrifter:

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!

There are more of us then you think. I've never been able to give a crap about the MP in the games and am rather baffled when someone say they've played any one of the games for months on end but never touched the campaign.....mostly because they generally tend to be well put together and are about 5-6 hours long(so it's not like it's taking you out of muti-player for long).

ImmortalDrifter:

CpT_x_Killsteal:
snip

Well what I'm gathering at this point is pretty obvious that you just don't like CoD for it's gameplay and are flogging it for unrelated stuff. BF3 was in no way an evolution from BC2 or even BF2. If you don't like CoD that's fine, no need to get so defensive. But there are just as many asshats in BF3, how many vehicle camping, jet stealing, base raping douchebags have you seen? There's no difference in dicks, I assure you.

I just don't like it because I just don't like Arena Shooters. Classing it as an FPS just degrades allt he other FPSs out there.

Anyways, I see nothing wrong with waiting for the vehicle to spawn to go in. Your team generally needs vehicle support in BF3.
And jet stealing? How the hell do you steal someone's jet?
Base raping... yeeeeah sort of I guess. But there are boundary lines so it doesn't really happen unless people are using air vehicles in Conquest. But then someone just jumps on the AA and it's all clear.

I'm just saying, that if I had to go with an arena shooter, I sure as hell wouldn't go with CoD. But sorry, I didn't know flogging CoD was against the rules on this topic.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

I just don't like it because I just don't like Arena Shooters. Classing it as an FPS just degrades allt he other FPSs out there.

Anyways, I see nothing wrong with waiting for the vehicle to spawn to go in. Your team generally needs vehicle support in BF3.
And jet stealing? How the hell do you steal someone's jet?
Base raping... yeeeeah sort of I guess. But there are boundary lines so it doesn't really happen unless people are using air vehicles in Conquest. But then someone just jumps on the AA and it's all clear.

How the hell are arena shooter and fps mutually exclusive? You've apparently applied some secret meaning or standard to fps that exists only in your head. News flash: it stands for first person shooter (and nothing more) and Call of duty sure as hell ticks that box.

Jet(/heli) stealing from enemies and baseraping are big issues in BF3. So big in fact that any problem Cod has pales in comparison imo. And this is coming from a fan of both series'.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

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.

It wasn't about mechanics it was about presentation. The original MW was able to keep itself somewhat grounded. It focused on two protaginists as opposed to the onslaught of nobodies the sequels had. While the game has its fair share of military wank it never delved into the fetishistic foisting of patriotism the ME3 SPC and to a slightly less degree the MW2 SPC. While it did have it stints of "war-is-hell" melodrama it never got as aggregious as the MW2, MW3 death scenes like that pathetic child dying scene ("FUCK THAT NOISE"). Also I liked how the original Modern Warfare wasn't that derivative.

Yahtzee described it best "MW2 reeks of a development team that couldn't believe how well the original did and 1/2 wanted to see how far they can go and the other was desperately trying to remove them from the computer."

So while the original MW was anything but smart the sequels were just painstakingly retarded and predictable.

I don't really have any interest in military shooters. I've never seen the appeal of re-enacting a historical or hypothetical war.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

ImmortalDrifter:

CpT_x_Killsteal:
snip

Well what I'm gathering at this point is pretty obvious that you just don't like CoD for it's gameplay and are flogging it for unrelated stuff. BF3 was in no way an evolution from BC2 or even BF2. If you don't like CoD that's fine, no need to get so defensive. But there are just as many asshats in BF3, how many vehicle camping, jet stealing, base raping douchebags have you seen? There's no difference in dicks, I assure you.

I just don't like it because I just don't like Arena Shooters. Classing it as an FPS just degrades allt he other FPSs out there.

Anyways, I see nothing wrong with waiting for the vehicle to spawn to go in. Your team generally needs vehicle support in BF3.
And jet stealing? How the hell do you steal someone's jet?
Base raping... yeeeeah sort of I guess. But there are boundary lines so it doesn't really happen unless people are using air vehicles in Conquest. But then someone just jumps on the AA and it's all clear.

I'm just saying, that if I had to go with an arena shooter, I sure as hell wouldn't go with CoD. But sorry, I didn't know flogging CoD was against the rules on this topic.

Sitting there doing nothing waiting for a vehicle to spawn only to get shot down in 5 seconds to go camp for it again does hamper your team. When even one person on your team is out of play in any BF game it puts the entire team at a disadvantage. Jet stealing is a practice in which youf fly your jet to the enemy base, get out of your teams jet, get in the enemy teams jet then take off unharmed. I'm unsure if the issue is still unpatched. Suffice to say it's a major pain in the ass when it happens. And honestly regardless of the AA base raping still happens a lot. Just because there are boundaries doesn't mean the enemy can't totally box you in and kill you as soon as you leave them. I'm no CoD fanboy, I've played every MP out there. (Save for PlanetSide but who honestly gives a shit about Planetside >.>)

SpectacularWebHead:

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.

Note please that I never said that the entire internet's behavior didn't excuse those from Cod's; but rather that CoD is not some specific nest of misogyny that many seem to think it is. Also, don't try and paint me as a villian for pointing this out. When complaining actually solves anything then you can say that I'm part of the problem. Am I saying misogyny is not bad? Of course not. But until the attitude of the internet itself changes, or they make a way to actually punish those among us who stain all of our reputations, then there isn't much we can do. I submit complaints every time I hear people spout misogynistic bullcrap, and so does everyone in my clan. I don't know what good it does, but I damn well try. Then there is the matter of marketing. A lot of it depends opon your point of view. Does having action make it male directed? If so then every game out this year has had male-centric adverts. That doesn't seem to stop girls from playing it. 3 of the 7 girls on my friends list are people I met on CoD; The other four I know in real life. Girls play Halo without abuse? Then why would the lead designer of Halo make a specific statement about being tougher on it if there was less of/no problem.(Which Microsoft rebuked rather promptly) Interesting female characters? Hardly. Kat and whatever the commander girl from 3 was were just stamped out action girl stereotypes. And this may seem like a cheap shot but Cortana is just SGT. Foley with a blue rack.

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.

Funnily enough I actually got into CoD because it was a refreshing change from TF2 and ET: Quake Wars. I play TF2 on the computer, always have and always will. Some of the updates do make the game more interesting, but some have made it more insipid. Need I even bring up hats? Oh, and red and blue become just as dull as grey and brown when they are all you see.

I've explained that already. As CoD is what everyone tries to be, we only get the same shitty brown shooter over and over.

I'm going to single out this statement because it proves you completely ignored what I said. You can't blame CoD for the others who imitate it. If CoD were to strike out and try something completely new on the MP shooter market (for the sake of this hypothetical stament let's just say it was a huge success), then what would stop companies fromm simply parroting that? It's exactly what happened with CoD 1 (or MoH, but that's a whole 'nother debate), and later with Halo, God of War, Gears of War, Uncharted (or Tomb Raider), and last but not least CoD 4. Purging the trend jumping shitheads from the gaming industry as a whole would be the only way to solve that problem. If a company has nothing to do with CoD then only the company itself to blame for making a rip-off.

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.

The rest of the statement is not only redundant and asinine, but hypocritical. If you say that you can't fault other companies for simply following basic business strategy, then how can you blame CoD/Activision? If no one else is willing to try a new idea, how can they be seen as any better than Activision? Risk is risk, no matter how large or small the company. For every bold new indie game that takes the world by storm, there are ten that fade into obscurity. It's easy to say that taking risk is better than safe profit, but black and white turns to grey when people's jobs are on the line. And again don't try and paint me as a villian for pointing out the obvious. The irony of this is that the amount of ripoffs coming into play this year is limited to 1 that I can name offhand (that Warfighter abomination). So even discussing this is becoming quickly irrelevant.

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.

HAHA amazingly pretentious, I love it. Let me make this clear, the reason I buy every CoD is not some kind of willing denial or ignorance. MW2 is in no way the exact same game to MW3, but nerding out over the subtler mechanics isn't a good way to open my post so I omitted it. The basic premise of CoD remains in each installment, but the same can be said of Half-Life. MW3 brought in strike packages, weapon xp, new recoil mechanics and refined netcode. Along with the standard additions of new killstreaks, guns, maps, gamemodes, perks, and equipment. Not adding new stuff as DLC also presents the advantage of going back, I can go back to MW2 if I don't like MW3 (which I didn't), but I can't get rid of people using the OP new weapons in BF3. (Because the DLC update is mandatory to prevent player division) I play each CoD because I'm not a sheep ironically enough. I don't know if the changes will suit my tastes unless I play with them; I trust no one's opinion but my own. If I don't like the changes then I sell it back to Gamestop for a minimum of half the purchase price. And I consider knowing the game myself to be worth 30$. The CoD I play is still MW2. Why don't I just keep playing it? For the same reason I only play TF2 a once or twice a week to indulge in the updates, because of routine. I've mastered every gun in MW2 just like I've mastered every class in TF2 (though that is less quantifiable). I still enjoy it, but it lacks challenge and a new CoD offers new opprotunities. Also ironic is if I followed the crowd I would talk exactly like you. There's a wonderful little hivemind here on the Escapist that I rather like poking to watch the hot air sputter out. "Yahtzee doesn't like the Witcher 2? He must be stupid!" "Someone doesn't like the popular indie game of the moment? They must be a CoD/BF fanboy!" "Someone likes Dragon Age 2? They must be an EA whore!" "If you don't share my opinion you are mentally inferior!". I made this thread because I was sick of such rhetoric but I knew it would remain; no matter how many valid points I threw at it. Though again it seems to be dying down, I hope it stays that way.

ImmortalDrifter:

SpectacularWebHead:

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.

Note please that I never said that the entire internet's behavior didn't excuse those from Cod's; but rather that CoD is not some specific nest of misogyny that many seem to think it is. Also, don't try and paint me as a villian for pointing this out. When complaining actually solves anything then you can say that I'm part of the problem. Am I saying misogyny is not bad? Of course not. But until the attitude of the internet itself changes, or they make a way to actually punish those among us who stain all of our reputations, then there isn't much we can do. I submit complaints every time I hear people spout misogynistic bullcrap, and so does everyone in my clan. I don't know what good it does, but I damn well try. Then there is the matter of marketing. A lot of it depends opon your point of view. Does having action make it male directed? If so then every game out this year has had male-centric adverts. That doesn't seem to stop girls from playing it. 3 of the 7 girls on my friends list are people I met on CoD; The other four I know in real life. Girls play Halo without abuse? Then why would the lead designer of Halo make a specific statement about being tougher on it if there was less of/no problem.(Which Microsoft rebuked rather promptly) Interesting female characters? Hardly. Kat and whatever the commander girl from 3 was were just stamped out action girl stereotypes. And this may seem like a cheap shot but Cortana is just SGT. Foley with a blue rack.

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.

Funnily enough I actually got into CoD because it was a refreshing change from TF2 and ET: Quake Wars. I play TF2 on the computer, always have and always will. Some of the updates do make the game more interesting, but some have made it more insipid. Need I even bring up hats? Oh, and red and blue become just as dull as grey and brown when they are all you see.

I've explained that already. As CoD is what everyone tries to be, we only get the same shitty brown shooter over and over.

I'm going to single out this statement because it proves you completely ignored what I said. You can't blame CoD for the others who imitate it. If CoD were to strike out and try something completely new on the MP shooter market (for the sake of this hypothetical stament let's just say it was a huge success), then what would stop companies fromm simply parroting that? It's exactly what happened with CoD 1 (or MoH, but that's a whole 'nother debate), and later with Halo, God of War, Gears of War, Uncharted (or Tomb Raider), and last but not least CoD 4. Purging the trend jumping shitheads from the gaming industry as a whole would be the only way to solve that problem. If a company has nothing to do with CoD then only the company itself to blame for making a rip-off.

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.

The rest of the statement is not only redundant and asinine, but hypocritical. If you say that you can't fault other companies for simply following basic business strategy, then how can you blame CoD/Activision? If no one else is willing to try a new idea, how can they be seen as any better than Activision? Risk is risk, no matter how large or small the company. For every bold new indie game that takes the world by storm, there are ten that fade into obscurity. It's easy to say that taking risk is better than safe profit, but black and white turns to grey when people's jobs are on the line. And again don't try and paint me as a villian for pointing out the obvious. The irony of this is that the amount of ripoffs coming into play this year is limited to 1 that I can name offhand (that Warfighter abomination). So even discussing this is becoming quickly irrelevant.

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.

HAHA amazingly pretentious, I love it. Let me make this clear, the reason I buy every CoD is not some kind of willing denial or ignorance. MW2 is in no way the exact same game to MW3, but nerding out over the subtler mechanics isn't a good way to open my post so I omitted it. The basic premise of CoD remains in each installment, but the same can be said of Half-Life. MW3 brought in strike packages, | | mechanics and refined netcode. Along with the standard additions of new| |guns, maps, gamemodes, perks, and equipment. Not adding new stuff as DLC | |rid of people using the OP new weapons in BF3. (Because the DLC update is| |prevent player division) I play each CoD because I'm not a sheep ironically| |know if the changes will suit my tastes unless I play with them; I trust| |but my own. If I don't like the changes then I sell it back to Gamesto| |the purchase price. And I consider knowing the game myself to| |. The CoD I| | MW2. Why don't I just keep playing it? For the sam| |I only play TF2 a onc| |week to indulge in the updates, because of | |mastered every gun in MW2| |mastered every class in TF2 (though | |quantifiable). I still enjoy| |and a new CoD offers new opprotunities. Also ironic is if I followed the crowd I would talk exactly like you. There's a wonderful little hivemind here on the Escapist that I rather like poking to watch the hot air sputter out. "Yahtzee doesn't like the Witcher 2? He must be stupid!" "Someone doesn't like the popular indie game of the moment? They must be a CoD/BF fanboy!" "Someone likes Dragon Age 2? They must be an EA whore!" "If you don't share my opinion you are mentally inferior!". I made this thread because I was sick of such rhetoric but I knew it would remain; no matter how many valid points I threw at it. Though again it seems to be dying down, I hope it stays that way.

Sorry, I lost interest in the impenatrable Wall 'O' redundant fanboy speak and drew a Half life lambda in it. Hey, I know a lost cause when I see one, I can't be bothered to respond productively anymore.

{EDIT} frickin' escapist doesn't record spaces...

I liked the sports analogy, I'll be sure to use that in any further arguments about repetition.

Not entirely sure what you want from people who agree with you. Whilst I don't play the CoD games, I have in the past and I can see the appeal. The games are not bad and anyone who says they are has no clue. Also, the option to mute loud-mouthed little shits is there for a reason.

aguspal:

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.

Total War gets a pass because its entire concept is "dicking around with history". So when you change the time period, you change what history you're dicking around with. CoD's concept is "kill people with guns", and when you just change the gun textures and nothing else, you're not getting anything new.

ImmortalDrifter:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

ImmortalDrifter:

Well what I'm gathering at this point is pretty obvious that you just don't like CoD for it's gameplay and are flogging it for unrelated stuff. BF3 was in no way an evolution from BC2 or even BF2. If you don't like CoD that's fine, no need to get so defensive. But there are just as many asshats in BF3, how many vehicle camping, jet stealing, base raping douchebags have you seen? There's no difference in dicks, I assure you.

I just don't like it because I just don't like Arena Shooters. Classing it as an FPS just degrades allt he other FPSs out there.

Anyways, I see nothing wrong with waiting for the vehicle to spawn to go in. Your team generally needs vehicle support in BF3.
And jet stealing? How the hell do you steal someone's jet?
Base raping... yeeeeah sort of I guess. But there are boundary lines so it doesn't really happen unless people are using air vehicles in Conquest. But then someone just jumps on the AA and it's all clear.

I'm just saying, that if I had to go with an arena shooter, I sure as hell wouldn't go with CoD. But sorry, I didn't know flogging CoD was against the rules on this topic.

Sitting there doing nothing waiting for a vehicle to spawn only to get shot down in 5 seconds to go camp for it again does hamper your team. When even one person on your team is out of play in any BF game it puts the entire team at a disadvantage. Jet stealing is a practice in which youf fly your jet to the enemy base, get out of your teams jet, get in the enemy teams jet then take off unharmed. I'm unsure if the issue is still unpatched. Suffice to say it's a major pain in the ass when it happens. And honestly regardless of the AA base raping still happens a lot. Just because there are boundaries doesn't mean the enemy can't totally box you in and kill you as soon as you leave them. I'm no CoD fanboy, I've played every MP out there. (Save for PlanetSide but who honestly gives a shit about Planetside >.>)

Well I play on console, but here are my views on them.

Waiting for vehicles at spawn - Hasn't happened as much on the servers I play. It's actually quite rare. There is of course a higher chance that 1 or 2 people will sit at spawn waiting for the helicopter. But that doesn't have as heavy an impact on my team winning.

Jet Stealing - So the enemy gets an extra jet in the air. That's one less pair of boots that can capture objectives. Jet's aren't all that good at seeking out infantry. Never seen jet stealing in RUsh though. Even once.

Base Raping - If it's Rush, it's just a matter pushing forward as far as you can. The boundaries stop it from becoming a problem. If it's CQ there just aren't enough people for it to happen, and as I said, the AA rips down the Helis.

These are just my observations from playing on console. Take em or leave em.

Sande45:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

I just don't like it because I just don't like Arena Shooters. Classing it as an FPS just degrades allt he other FPSs out there.

Anyways, I see nothing wrong with waiting for the vehicle to spawn to go in. Your team generally needs vehicle support in BF3.
And jet stealing? How the hell do you steal someone's jet?
Base raping... yeeeeah sort of I guess. But there are boundary lines so it doesn't really happen unless people are using air vehicles in Conquest. But then someone just jumps on the AA and it's all clear.

How the hell are arena shooter and fps mutually exclusive? You've apparently applied some secret meaning or standard to fps that exists only in your head. News flash: it stands for first person shooter (and nothing more) and Call of duty sure as hell ticks that box.

Jet(/heli) stealing from enemies and baseraping are big issues in BF3. So big in fact that any problem Cod has pales in comparison imo. And this is coming from a fan of both series'.

They need to be separated. They are two totally different animals. That's why they say you can't compare BF and CoD. They aren't the same genre. Or I guess you could separate them into "shooter" and "arena shooter".

I'll tell you what I told the other guy.

Jet Stealing - So the enemy gets an extra jet in the air. That's one less pair of boots that can capture objectives. Jet's aren't all that good at seeking out infantry. Never seen jet stealing in RUsh though. Even once.

Base Raping - If it's Rush, it's just a matter pushing forward as far as you can. The boundaries stop it from becoming a problem. If it's CQ there just aren't enough people for it to happen, and as I said, the AA rips down the Helis.

SpectacularWebHead:

Sorry, I lost interest in the impenatrable Wall 'O' redundant fanboy speak and drew a Half life lambda in it. Hey, I know a lost cause when I see one, I can't be bothered to respond productively anymore.

{EDIT} frickin' escapist doesn't record spaces...

Fantastic cop-out. Spewing the classic "Well youre a fanboy so your valid points are moot". But whatever, I know a lost cause when I see one.

ImmortalDrifter:
The other reason is because to many the repetition does nothing to stop their enjoyment of CoD, or anything else for that matter. Does repetition stop football from being enjoyed year after year after year? Is football bad because of that?

Best answer anyone could of said towards the repetitive argument. Well said sir, well said.

OT: I'm a big fan of Black Ops (not really Call of Duty or the Modern Warfare games) but nether the less camped out with my girlfriend for 7 hours to get our pre-ordered Black Ops II. Though it 'feels' the same, I really admired all the efforts they placed into making the game more 'fair' along with the fact the crosshairs are actually accurate so if I snipe someone.. it actually hits them! Yeah! ^_^

Besides that, I think CoD gets a lot of black lash because people can't understand why it sells so well when more 'deserving' games that are 'original' don't get as many sells. This to me, is because CoD is a franchise, that has something for everyone. Anyone can play it, do well, and the matches are fast. It's a game where the style and gameplay never get old plus it has mechanics that let's you try being the class that suits you best. A first person shooter where you get points for every kill or objective you get along with given bonuses and trophies/emblems to unlock... it gets addictive. It's genius because a kid to a young adult can understand the functions and play like a pro in given time.

A prime example is my dad. He's over 50 years old and honestly not a gamer. However, Black Ops is a game he can appreciate because of the guns, the simple factor of "shoot the guy, get the kill" with the fact that there's different modes to play from such as Domination to Free-For-All .. those alone set different styles as to how you play and my dad loves Team Deathmatch especially when we fight each other. Oh yeah and you can play with a ton of friends or a clan so imagine how addictive that gets to. It all works out in the end.

I fisinshed BLOPS on my PS3 some days ago and i had a real blast, especially with my "Somethings got to hit" method of shooting. Everything was in spanish but that almost made it more fun. Tried my hand at the MP too and i that must have been the most enjoyable CoD MP i've played. They're good games, though released a bit too close to each other.

I am surprised people don't really get this by now. CoD is shat on because it is popular and it doesn't change the stuff it is meant to change well. Now while the core mechanics and ideas of CoD are fine and good as I can testify by having nearly 2k - 2.5k hours between 1, UO, 2, 4, WaW and BO. That said the stuff they are supposed to change as in weapons, stuff like killstreaks and perks has declined seriously in quality after 4.

The only thing good about BO was it basically gave fraps, contracts and wager matches. The rest was weak sauce especially the actual maps. CoD 4 had good weapons that were mostly balanced bar 1 which was only a problem in hardcore, good varied maps, good perks balance(bar 2 which are quite easily overcome) and a pretty good campaign.

Then there are just some good awful decisions with bad implementation like how they "balanced" quickscoping for BO and just MW2 design decisions on the PC in general. Just a take a pick of anything that they removed in MW2 and it was a bad idea with crap justification.

That is the reason some vocal people have a problem with CoD.

Yes lets talk about Call of Duty. I will start with my main problem with the franchise, its god awful PC ports. Let me touch on the main problem for me, the fact that I get sick while playing it. Literally sick due to the small FoV options, an FoV that you would literally have to wear goggles to have.

Problem 2: Horrible horrible horrible option menus. I get that CoD is made for consoles, I do, but the company has to put the time in when designing for PC or Im not going to buy their product. You want a good example of how to do option menus right? Go look at borderlands 2

Problem 3: Horrible graphics. Yeah Im sorry these games may look good on consoles and if you enjoy that graphics style then by all means keep playing but on my machine it looks horrible. Why? because its designed for machines with 7 year old hardware and no attempt is made to increase the quality for my platform of choice.

Problem 4: The same game. To me, it seems like the game is nothing but some new maps (while lacking the older good maps) and guns with a tacked on story each time its released. It seems to me that as tacked on as the story seems to be Call of Duty would be a lot better if they just got rid of the single player and put all that cash into the multiplayer. Now the argument was made that some poeple can play the same game over and over again, but in cases like BF3 we arent talking about a game thats hardly changed or adapted a thing. BF3 has clear differences and additions to Bad company 2 (such as jets, greater gun customization, and varying recoil patterns) which so far as I could tell between MW2 and MW3 nothing really changed.

Problem 5: There are better multiplayer FPS games out there for PC. What games? Well Blacklight:Retribution comes to mind. Better aesthetic, great graphics, good shooting mechanics, extreme levels of customization, a wide variety of maps and game modes, and its FREE TO PLAY

Problem 6: The developers dont listen to its audience. How long have you all been begging for dedicated servers to run the multiplayer? If I remember correctly in MW3 it was only for unranked matches and now theyre claiming with Black ops 2 they'll have both peer to peer and dedicated but as far as I know thats the only detail they've put out regarding the dedicated servers.

The final thing to say on this is, if you enjoy call of duty then by all means keep playing it. I will never say you should spend your free time doing something you hate, in fact I think spending ones free time doing something they dont like is a tragedy. However I still have many valid problems with the game and I feel that activision is putting out a substandard product that is only still popular because people havnt tried different games or dont have access to them on console.

ImmortalDrifter:

"It's the same game every year"

While I like Call of Duty and play it, I find myself unable to shoot down this argument. I'm all for innovating and changing game play, I just don't like it having to update itself every year with a new game. I'd prefer a much longer cycle, 3 years, maybe 2 if you think that's too long. Maybe then I'd actually buy the DLC.

Another reason, is that I've been disappointed about Cod lately. The Infinity Ward and Treyarch builds both played and felt different; I preferred infinity's. When MW3 came along, I expected the MW2 multiplayer to be expanded on. What I got felt a lot more like black ops, and it wasn't an improvement. Something about CoD4 and MW2 was fun, and that's been lost. This is why I won't be buying BO2 when it comes out, at least not until I'm sufficiently satisfied its a total game changer, in the awesomely good way.

ImmortalDrifter:

SpectacularWebHead:

Sorry, I lost interest in the impenatrable Wall 'O' redundant fanboy speak and drew a Half life lambda in it. Hey, I know a lost cause when I see one, I can't be bothered to respond productively anymore.

{EDIT} frickin' escapist doesn't record spaces...

Fantastic cop-out. Spewing the classic "Well youre a fanboy so your valid points are moot". But whatever, I know a lost cause when I see one.

Dude, You're unwilling to acknowledge any flaw in this property, or a least so far you've potrayed the series as a gift from the elder gods. You've chucked it on a pedestal so high you'd need an oxygen mask to be able to breathe near it, and you DON'T think that's at all fan-boyish? Your points aren't valid because they are heavily biased.If you'rea fan of something youve got to look at it critically or it never gets any better. If you can find one, good hard criticism of cod, I will drop the fanboy argument, but so far the entire purpose of this thread seems like a Huge "THEY JUST DON' UNDERSTAND!!!"

I just wish CoD would go away for awhile. Not because I hate it, I just want some time to miss it. CoD has been (slowly) evolving but it is rather difficult for many to notice when it comes out every year with such incremental changes. If you look at BO 2 and then look the earlier MW1+cods there are some decent changes.

The yearly schedule wasn't really an issue at first because many were simply waiting for the next IW game so you could build community without seeing the previous games developer support dropped almost immediately.

It is unfortunate IW never got to separate MW from the CoD label I feel like then we could have seen the two diverge and create two happier niches which would likely have overlap regardless. They could have succeeded in that regard where EA has failed (with BF and MoH) and MS has succeeded(with Halo and Gears). Though the idea of avoiding the yearly release through two distinct franchises is a sound one only BF has found any real success compared to MoH.

Activision could have had its cake and eaten it too. Had it let IW do its own thing with MW2 so they could have had two successful franchises under IW and Treyarch and I feel look better in the eyes of the gaming community. Instead they have chosen to milk the daylights out of it every year and I hope that they get punished for it eventually(as I would hope regardless of the franchise).

SpectacularWebHead:
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.

I'm wondering where you're getting that knowledge. I don't imagine there's any clear statistics for that sort of thing. It has one of the largest followings, so that may imply that it has the largest number of sexists. But you could also say the series has the largest non-sexist following too from that.

As for sexist behaviour in other games/genres, I can remember this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5436-Not-Okay

And as for Starcraft 2 which the guy tried to claim had no sexism... Starcraft 2 has extremely few female professionals. The last time I saw Acer.Scarlett play, the mods in the twitch chat were completely unable to control the amount of sexist bile spewed everywhere. People without sexist views were almost completely drowned out. The mods had to recruit new mods from viewers they knew to be reasonable just to get a hold of the situation, and even then it's uncertain if they managed to because of the extra mods or because the match which she was playing was ending.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you can find sexism in most genres. In that single twitch chat of a single game featuring a female player I've seen/heard more sexism than I ever have on CoD or any other game. But would that make Starcraft 2 the game with one of the most sexist followings? No, I wouldn't say that because I understand that what someone sees is not always proportionate to what it is.

By that token that doesn't rule out that CoD may have the most sexist following, but I think for anyone to claim that X game is (one of) the worst is very naive.

Personally I don't dislike the games or the series; I just don't see them as "fresh" enough.

I played the crap out of CoD2 (its the first one I tried) in the day (single player and multi) but never cared for MoH or CoD1 or CoD3 - to me the felt too similar.

When CoD4 came out it was awesome - new weapons; great single-player. I completed the campaign 3 times and sunk hundreds of hours into multiplayer. It was a very good experience and one of the great games of the last decade. I was excited about MW2 but it didn't do the same for me and the subsequent ones have been the same.

The thing is though; it doesn't matter. There are types of games I like which are, essentially, face-lifts of prior games - just not CoD (or sports games for that matter).

I honestly think that a multiplayer-only CoD; with yearly DLC updates, a sort $10 to $20 map, weapon and texture pack (price determined on how many extras were added) - would be a smart idea. I wouldn't be so keen to play it myself but I am sure a lot of gamers would love this option - no need to buy the complete game each time (and no development costs sunk into a single-player campaign each year).

The main/only issue I have with CoD and its evolution as a franchise is that I don't like the multiplayer. I just don't... Maybe its the fact that people with less that stellar connections are always boned against people with better connections, which makes it feel like everybody is using bulletproof vests but me. Or the fact that the game rewards good players by giving them superpowers at the expense of penalizing bad players, which makes the learning curve impossibly steep, frustrating and simply boring. Or that the maps are smaller, more limited and more confined than other FPS games, emphasizing memorization, fast action and big kill counts over teamwork, planning and options.

I will always favor the campaign instead of competitive multiplayer. Call of Duty 1 and 2 are among my favorite FPS of their generation for the single player mode alone. However, so little effort has been put into the campaign compared to the multiplayer component that buying a CoD game at full price just doesn't seems justifiable. Not only has the campaign been reduced in length iteration over iteration, but also in quality. By the time it got to MW 2 and then 3, it looked designed by comity, by a Michael Bays clones comity; and I just didn't care anymore. This might be the first Call of Duty I plan to buy in a while, but I am not yet interested enough to pay 60 $ for the lesser third of a game.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked