Yes, the games are mostly the same from a visual and gameplay standpoint, and I understand we all like a good amount of innovation, but seriously? Do you just hate it because it makes a lot of money? Is it because the utterly simple run and gun mechanics, which is only one of the many playstyles, are working and doing what the industry was designed for in the first place, making money? What makes me wonder this the most, is the fact that most people who will argue against COD will crucify themselves in the name of Battlefield, which does the same damn thing with a few different mechanics. (destroy-able cover, vehicles, and more strategic play typically for BF, Perks, killstreak rewards, and a more berserk style of play typically for COD) Seriously, could someone explain to me what COD has done to deserve the verbal crucifictions it gets, and as an addition, what BF does differently?
COD: Why all the hate?
- Thread starter Tommeh Brownleh
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh hello thread, I didn't expect to see you again so soon! That's what? 50 times in the past month?
But if I must be constructive... It's because the Call of Duty games are the most basic of basic shooters. There's nothing particularly unique about them.
If you imagine each FPS game as a pizza, then the Call of Duty games are plain cheese, whereas TF2 is a Hawaiian, Section 8: Prejudice is a pepperoni and battlefield is a meat combo.
Now, in my first attempt at derailing a thread, what kind of pizza is your favourite game?
But if I must be constructive... It's because the Call of Duty games are the most basic of basic shooters. There's nothing particularly unique about them.
If you imagine each FPS game as a pizza, then the Call of Duty games are plain cheese, whereas TF2 is a Hawaiian, Section 8: Prejudice is a pepperoni and battlefield is a meat combo.
Now, in my first attempt at derailing a thread, what kind of pizza is your favourite game?
i hate it mainly becuase of the lack of diversity (diversity look at battlefields multiplayer...) all you can do is shoot there is no place for support or defence roles olny offence
I can't remember where, but I heard about a study that some place did. It might've been the podcast here, can't remember.
But anyway. They took some amount of people, I think it was 50, and had them all take a survey rating their beliefs, from a Strongly Agree (5) to Strongly Disagree (1). When they were turned in, the results were what you expected, mostly 2s-4s with a few 1s and 5s. Then they put everyone in small groups and had them take the same survey again. When those were turned in, every answer was a 1 or a 5.
That's why.
But anyway. They took some amount of people, I think it was 50, and had them all take a survey rating their beliefs, from a Strongly Agree (5) to Strongly Disagree (1). When they were turned in, the results were what you expected, mostly 2s-4s with a few 1s and 5s. Then they put everyone in small groups and had them take the same survey again. When those were turned in, every answer was a 1 or a 5.
That's why.
its not because it's popular, alot of haters of COD play halo and battlefield which are just as popular.
the thing is, COD has somehow made it self and all its bad AI, shitty gameplay, bad story lines, forgettable characters, poor mechanics and engine (60 frames a second are not worth a thing if its bugged out the ass), and terrible multiplayer has somehow became the standard and had HALTED innovation from other games. Its like the Transformers movies which have lowered the movie goers standards which has the effect of lower the filmmakers quality to just "good enough".
and lets be honest, almost every mechanic Modern warfare and latter COD games have used were done in battlefield and halo before them and ten times better.
Also, can they go a single game without re-enacting whole movie scenes?
the thing is, COD has somehow made it self and all its bad AI, shitty gameplay, bad story lines, forgettable characters, poor mechanics and engine (60 frames a second are not worth a thing if its bugged out the ass), and terrible multiplayer has somehow became the standard and had HALTED innovation from other games. Its like the Transformers movies which have lowered the movie goers standards which has the effect of lower the filmmakers quality to just "good enough".
and lets be honest, almost every mechanic Modern warfare and latter COD games have used were done in battlefield and halo before them and ten times better.
Also, can they go a single game without re-enacting whole movie scenes?
Its just that Black ops sucked a horrendously horrible dick. Everyone who was a fan of MW2 says it. Well allmy friends do and they loved teh previous games.
Because Activision are idiots. That's why I don't like it. Compare it to Valve and TF2 who have been updating the game constantly, and recently made it free to play; and Activision who release it year after year, charge for map packs ($15 as well, and there's SEVERAL of them) and now have the balls to charge for stat tracking.
Did I mention TF2 came with Half-Life 2: Episode 2 and Portal?
Did I mention TF2 came with Half-Life 2: Episode 2 and Portal?
I think you said it best yourself in lines 2 & 3 of your biased explanation in that run-and-gun mechanics "is only one of the many playstyles, are working and doing what the industry was designed for in the first place, making money?" And quite frankly, industry exists to serve mankind, not itself. This overturning of the laws of society and its structure as a whole is what frustrates the well minded individual.
The games are okay, I guess. It's the same thing with Justin Bieber and the Twilight movies: I'm indifferent to the actual thing, but the fans... God, fuck the fans. Not all, obviously, but you know what I mean. I can't play jackshit online with anyone while a Call of Duty game is out.
Cheese, just like my favorite pizza is cheese. There's nothing wrong with simplicity. Complexity can ruin so many good things.Thanatus1992 said:
OT: If that wasn't obvious, I have no problem with COD, they are some of the most fun games I've ever played.
Probably because they're incredibly popular despite average single player gameplay and without having brought anything significantly different or new to multiplayer since '90s FPSs. Add weapon/perk imbalances to the mix along with pure retardation in game design, tiny/poorly designed maps, and (perhaps worst of all) the community. That's what I'd assume at least.
I don't even hate CoD. I'm honestly trying to be objective. I'm just struggling to think of anything particularly good about the games. The single player is kind of cinematic I suppose. But what good is that when the gameplay is, at best, average? I guess that attracts a large following from casual players, and maybe that's why a lot of gamers hate it?
I'd say there's a pretty big difference between CoD and Battlefield, not that I particularly love Battlefield anymore, but here's some gameplay footage. First thing that came up on Youtube; it's someone playing with bots. It should highlight some differences.
I don't even hate CoD. I'm honestly trying to be objective. I'm just struggling to think of anything particularly good about the games. The single player is kind of cinematic I suppose. But what good is that when the gameplay is, at best, average? I guess that attracts a large following from casual players, and maybe that's why a lot of gamers hate it?
I'd say there's a pretty big difference between CoD and Battlefield, not that I particularly love Battlefield anymore, but here's some gameplay footage. First thing that came up on Youtube; it's someone playing with bots. It should highlight some differences.
COD doesn't get all the hate it does because of the way the game plays. It gets hate because the game doesn't change. At all. (At least when Infinity Ward develops it). I don't like when a company makes millions of dollars selling me an update for a game I bought last year. Battlefield doesn't get the same kind of hate because the game actually changes between releases. Maybe not a change like from Doom 2 to Doom 3, but at least enough to keep the game feeling fresh.
COD, on the other hand, is utterly stale. And it's going to stay that way, because people are clearly more than willing to fork over $60 every year for a few re-skinned textures.
COD, on the other hand, is utterly stale. And it's going to stay that way, because people are clearly more than willing to fork over $60 every year for a few re-skinned textures.
Why do people compare Battlefield and CoD? Battlefield sits with TF2, Day of Defeat, and Enemy Territory, and CoD sits with deathmatch based games like Quake, Half-Life 2 Deathmatch and Doom. The only place they are similar is the setting which CoD copied from BF2.
Why do these threads keep popping up every five seconds? It's simple. The more popular a product, the more likely people are to have an opinion about it, be it good or bad. I don't understand why this is such a mystifying concept that it needs to be debated every week.