Call of Duty campaigns are very popular. The data says so.

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Come on my dear friend, what FPS you have been playing?? I have been playing FPS since 90s. i mean a Gold Standard??? its perfect example of how not to make FPS. COD4 was not even good FPS for 2007 when Stalker and Crysis were far superior.

yes its most mainstream but also among the worst FPS franchise. only good COD games were original and UO. I was into COD before it become cool.

I first played Wolfenstein 3D in 1993. I've since played all the Quake games (except 4), all the DOOM games, all the Unreal games, all Call of Duty games up until Ghosts, I've played all the Medal of Honor games available on PC. I've played the Crysis series, the Stalker series, I've played LOADS of Red Orchestra/Rising Storm, I've mastered No One Lives Forever and done multiple replays of Wolfenstein: the New Order. I used to play C&C Renegade at LAN parties and have poured lots of time into Day of Defeat, Counter-Strike, Sven Co-Op, Firearms and many other Half-Life mods, to not mention the base game itself. Trust me, I've got the "cred" and I know my shooters.

Here's the thing: If CoD is as terrible as you say, how come that most of the industry has spent the last decade trying to emulate it? Why does it move more copies on release night than most AAA titles can hope to move over their entire service life? Why is it still the high point of gaming releases every year?
The answer is obvious: Because CoD isn't terrible. It ain't innovating no more (which Modern Warfare certainly did, by the way), but it provides a gaming experience that people apparently want. As I said before, you might not like but that's not the same as the game being bad.

As for playing CoD before it was cool, there is no such thing. I got Call of Duty on release and it was hyped to heaven even then as it piggybacked on Band of Brothers and Enemy at the Gates (to the point where several missions were basically recreations of those two). CoD was always destined to be a high profile release and was "cool" even before it was available in stores.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

Here's the thing: If CoD is as terrible as you say, how come that most of the industry has spent the last decade trying to emulate it? Why does it move more copies on release night than most AAA titles can hope to move over their entire service life? Why is it still the high point of gaming releases every year? .

They copy and past same thing over and over again. just like assassins creed. release same game every year. so other developer copy it because it sells. sells =/= quality. both AC and COD are trash. they will make it every year not because its good. because it sell and become mainstream.

The answer is obvious: Because CoD isn't terrible. It ain't innovating no more (which Modern Warfare certainly did, by the way), but it provides a gaming experience that people apparently want

Modern warfare didnot innovate anything. it take FPS genre backward. very scripted, walking in straight line, 2 weapon limit, only NPC can open door. try compare it with Stalker and Crysis which released same year.

 

[emilymartin]

Basically Call of Duty: Balck Ops 3 is a reskin of Black Ops 2 with one or two extra's. Once you have played the baffling campaign you get to access nightmares, which is a campaign with zombie enemies. A nice touch. I give it one point for this. I am die hard fan of this series so I Call of Duty: Black Ops III Kaufen [http://www.instant-gaming.com/de/784-kaufen-key-steam-call-of-duty-black-ops-iii/] from online website since I wanted to play it as soon as I can but I was bit disappointed. Though CoD: black ops 1 was totally awesome! I also give it one point for zombies, always fun. The last point goes for having up to 4 players on campaign. But everything else is pretty dire. Incredibly bad net code. The whole game is a mishmash of borrowed ideas on a tired formula with a poor engine. I mean 6vs6 in team deathmatch?? Battlefield is 32 a side and 50 times larger maps. I haven't bought a COD since Black Ops 2 on the 360. I thought I'd give it another go. I cannot express how thoroughly disappointed I am with this wasted opportunity. But as the Infinite Warfare trailer is released I hope that this game will be different.

 

[Ambient_Malice]

Basically Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 is a reskin of Black Ops 2 with one or two extra's.

I don't think it's a a reskin when the campaign, from story to characters to assets has basically nothing in common with Black Ops II. I know people misuse the term "reskin" all the time, but it's like calling Perfect Dark a reskin of GoldenEye.

I guess the root of the problem is that multiplayer games are not really suited to drastic change. Singleplayer games are all about the exciting and new. Look at how Black Ops II introduced new game mechanics like the wingsuits and horse riding and Strike Force missions and choices with consequence.

MP thrives on the familiar, to an extent. It's like magic tricks vs card games. A singleplayer campaign is like an assortment of magic tricks, some familiar, some new, to keep the audience captivated. A multiplayer experience is like playing Go Fish. The rules must stay more or less the same, or the players will be alienated.

Once you have played the baffling campaign you get to access nightmares, which is a campaign with zombie enemies. A nice touch. I give it one point for this.

That, on the other hand, is a reskin. An extremely lazy reskin of Black Ops III that didn't even bother to replace the cutscenes, and instead had extremely awkward narrarition slapped on top of cutscenes that had nothing to do with what was going on in the "story.

The last point goes for having up to 4 players on campaign. But everything else is pretty dire.

I feel a lot of Black Ops III's campaign problems are rooted in the co-op. It prevented the designers from being able to craft a story experience that was oriented around the player. Everything was detached. Repetitive. It's like they spent more time figuring out how to cater to 4-player squad shooting than actually crafting an exciting, fresh series of levels. FEAR 3 had a very similar problem. Co-op is simply not suited to linear, story-driven FPS like CoD. It works far better in third person shooters, for a start. So much of "immersive" FPS design involves controlling where the player is looking. Co-op ruins that.

I cannot express how thoroughly disappointed I am with this wasted opportunity.

I was deeply disappointed by the game. On one hand, I respect that Treyarch tried something new. But they failed so horribly, and all the truly innovative ideas from Black Ops II were thrown away.

But as the Infinite Warfare trailer is released I hope that this game will be different.

If Infinite Warfare can actually deliver on Infinity Ward's vague promises, it could be absolutely amazing. It all comes down to execution, though. Also, unlike BOIII, the key thing is that IW think carefully about how they can craft an optimal campaign andMP experience separately. Games like Advanced Warfare and Black Ops III had the design of MP and SP bleeding into each other, which weakened both. As an example, while cool jetpacks and shit are great in singleplayer FPS games, I don't think they're a great idea in most MP FPS games. Just because something is in the campaign doesn't mean it needs to appear in the MP. MP should focus on pure, timeless design, untainted by gimmicks and frills.