COD: Why all the hate?

[yman15]

Um Idk the only Cod game I've had enough play time with to have a legitimate opinion on is Mw1. I have to say the only real complaints I have about it is the campaign ends abruptly, and people who can't shut up(the little kids and adults). Really the hate for the series as a whole seems a bit irrational for a lot of people.

 

[Denamic]

Because the amount of 'new' content between each game isn't even enough to qualify as an expansion pack.
And charging a small fortune for maps is fucking bullshit.

 

[A Free Man]

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?

This is mostly true, but I would say that the graphical effects on CoD4 are unique in a way. It was a pretty immersive campaign because of the way the graphics were used. And I know, I know "grahpics don't make a good game blah blah" but in my opinion the graphics certainly enhanced CoD4 enough that I would consider it a decent game. Haven't liked any of them since particularly much but I wouldn't say that the reason most people hate it is due to a lack of originality.

 

[Wintermoot]

probably the fan base and the short campaigns.

 

[Joccaren]

I don't hate the game, I hate the players I run into on the game. Its why I usually steer clear of any multiplayer, but CoD doesn't have interesting gameplay (IMO) to even get me interested in Single Player. The campaign and the quick matches just bore me. I simply do not find it fun, so I do not play it.

 

[Nazulu]

It's the developers one trick horse, COD after COD being released every year without trying to become anything special and with short campaigns. It has too much power, raking in money with the same damn formula, why can't they make a really big COD and focus on trying something different? They're playing it really really safe and I hate it, it's pathetic.

 

[ninetails593]

It's since Call of Duty is so popular. People on the internet like to make themselves feel special by saying they hate it. I don't blame them, it's in their nature to be horrible.

 

[AngelBlackChaos]

Well, to me, many FPS's fall into similar environmental categories. Land of the Brown, Land of the Dark Colors, Land of Futuristic-Bright-Lights-o-Rama, or Land of Dirty Neutrals. That I can ignore...kinda.

Then the guns. Many of them, particularly modern realistic, have similar guns. That, I can accept.

Then there are the game modes, and types of multiplayer. Most of the same.

Then the Players. Most of the same, but so,so many of them are undeniably infuriating. Those that Hack, those that Whine, those that Rage, those that Glorify their own movements.

All that I can deal with. Paying for Game 1, 1a, 1b, 1c? ONE TINY SWITCH OR ADD ON DOES NOT FEEL WORTH MY TIME. Nor does higher graphics, better sound effects, or extra maps.

Team Fortress, and other games that have their own unique feel and gameplay, make for a much more worthwhile experience. FPS games that involve stronger strategy, are more worth my time. Those with unique weaponry and combination of weaponry, are more worth my time.

Why tread the same ground unless you are going to actually make something far more inspiring or interesting?

THAT'S why I cannot stand CoD games.

 

[Nazulu]

If something gets too popular a lot of people will hate it, no matter what the objective quality.

Lil Wayne is a great example of this. CoD is an even better example.

Yep, that's how you ignore all criticisms. However, your argument is generalising and holds no ground.

 

[sleeperhit79]

gamers especially the most hardcore of the hardcore are pretty fickle and fiercely defensive of whatever they like to the point of not making sense and disproving their own points with their arguments. One of the most used argument is that COD hasn't innovated much. Usually the person that makes that argument is someone who loves BF. I have played at least the last 4 BF's and while I do like the games, they haven't innovated either. The only one that can really complain about innovation is the gamer that is switching from one series to the other. Anyone that has played the last 3 versions either series is probably only using innovation as an argument because they heard it in another thread. Cod has the largest sales numbers ever and honestly a very large portion of those fans have never been on a internet forum or ever will. Bf on the other hand is more of a core gamer/computer nerd thing and as such you will constantly see them crying on boards about how COD sucks even though critics give both games similar scores. Oh and to call BF realistic is a joke, try a game like ARMA or red orchestra and you'll be begging for some COD afterwards.

 

[Signa]

The best things about these threads is they are titled EXACTLY the same each time.

 

[Nazulu]

It's since Call of Duty is so popular. People on the internet like to make themselves feel special by saying they hate it. I don't blame them, it's in their nature to be horrible.

And you know what else is horrible, ignoring all complaints and generalising everyone you disagree with. You probably won't understand though, it's in your nature to be horrible.

 

[thatguy105]

Because its infecting FPS's. Other are trying to be more COD-like. Battlefield, i LOVE badcompany 2, then BF3 they introduced "Prone" just like COD. Medal Of Honor had Killstreaks...like COD. Its a good shooter, but thats it. Its good, not outstanding, not amazing. Just good, even worse is the 10 year olds who play it.

um...prone was actually taken AWAY from the bad company games, the first battlefields had prone in them. Honestly, why are people thinking COD came up with older mechanics? almost everything from the modern warfare games have been done in battlefield 1942,vietnam,2,2142,and now 3. And 1942 came out in what? 2002? and BF2 2004-5?

It's seems like a matter of,dare I say, BF fanboys reaching for reasons to hyperbolize COD's success as being detrimental to the FPS genre. Whenever this topic is discussed,it seems as though anything that can be attributed exclusive to the COD series (even if falsely attributed) is vilified solely because it provides a premise to the argument for why COD is evil and potentially harmful to the FPS genre.

 

[Pharsalus]

I've got some gripes with CoD here and there but the main thing that has struck me since MW1 is the lack of innovation. The engine has been polished a bit but it's still pretty much the same from 4 years ago. The series is in such a dominant position that they don't need to try new things as far as gameplay, and are probably afraid to do so lest they alienate their massive fan base, The tyranny of the masses has resulted in stagnation. I'm not a huge Halo fan but the differences between the first 3 games are staggering compared to the homogeneity of the CoD series.

 

[Keepeas]

Re-release every year with little change + stubborn fan-boys = HATE

Honestly, if they have Treyarch making shit on the off year nobody would care.

 

[Joshimodo]

-Boring
-Rehashed so many times
-Superior FPS games out there
-Easy
-Lack of innovation beyond perk/killstreak system introduced in 4
-Lack of advancement in technology


Etc.

 

[ninetails593]

It's since Call of Duty is so popular. People on the internet like to make themselves feel special by saying they hate it. I don't blame them, it's in their nature to be horrible.

And you know what else is horrible, ignoring all complaints and generalising everyone you disagree with. You probably won't understand though, it's in your nature to be horrible.

Oh hello there, thanks for the aggression. Infinity Ward has been solely catering to complaints. Look at the trailers! There are so many moments that basically go: "Look what we fixed, ". Also, it's hard not to generalize when every argument against Call of Duty is: "Graphics same, too much money, too frequent, too similar". When the complaints start getting unique, I'll stop generalizing fanboys.

-Boring
-Rehashed so many times
-Superior FPS games out there
-Easy
-Lack of innovation beyond perk/killstreak system introduced in 4
-Lack of advancement in technology


Etc.

-Faster pace than others
-Same goes to many FPS games
-Matter of opinion
-Gotten that nuke emblem yet?
-New killstreak system
-Then why does it look good?

 

[WaffleCopters]

the simplest way i put it is:

Now that the original creators of CoD have ABSOLUTELY ZERO input, you arent gonna get the same game. or at least even the slighest bit of originality to make a cod game better then the last.

but a less "I hate treyarch" bias reason:

Probably because it just went so well over a period (like halo in that respect) but managed to get a terrible community and reputation due to reasons and now is a joke (just like halo in that respect)

Or maybe that CoD started to take itself too seriously after MW2 got hated on... because it was too Fun over Realism game.

people WILL play it splitscreen or system link, even if they despise the online gaming of it (just like halo... seeing a pattern here?!).

Well Black Ops was the first CoD game I ever bought, and I quite like it. Though I hear that it's the same as MW2, which was the same as MW, and so on.

wherever you heard that from is completely wrong. Modern Warfare 1 was a classic example, and innovative of its time in many aspects. Then Mw2 came along and added shits n giggles to the MW franchise. Then blackops came along and kicked the founders of MW out and shat on their game. AGAIN. they did so by removing all the shits n giggles gameplay previously mentioned which made MW2 the best of the CoD so far if you prefer gameplay over realism.


I might also point out here, that some people may hate it purely because it was proven that the games sell better if they have Call of Duty in the name... then because its made by the company... IW, treyarch or whatever... SLedgehammer studios...

 

[Korten12]

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?

WHY WHYY!!!!!!!!!!!

D: I was so hoping this would stop... It just brings the haters out!