COD: Why all the hate?

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

Boring, generic and entirely overrated.

Might not be terrible games, but they really aren't good either.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I'm not really big on first-person shooters, but I don't see anything that makes COD any worse than any other series. Maybe some people see it as a threat to other FPS's considering how popular it is.

And that is what it has proven itself to be, because the game is set up for childish simplicity and made somuch money Scrooge McDuck would be put to shame everyone is looking at it as the "lead in the FPS genre".

Now we got every developer and their grandma slashing off every possible FPS feature in the hope to make the same success story... that's just not cool.

 

[WaffleCopters]

Honestly I actually think CoD4 is one of the all time greats so I can't exactly be unbiased about this.

First off, Saying you like Modern Warfare 1 (if you wonder why im calling it that you need to do some research about the MW series PRIOR to the IW founders being kicked out) is different to saying you like CoD... CoD and MW were meant to be different series', but of course MW1 worked too well, so treyarch wouldnt hear of it and continued the CoD with the same sort of gameplay as MW1, meaning MW couldnt split off, and eventually became just part of CoD again.

 

[johnstamos]

because old first person shooters were better, presented more of a challenge, had at least some focus on making a single player campaign and didn't charge 60 dollars for whats essentially a patch for the multiplayer

 

[Ixnay1111]

I like COD but seeing as its been the only fps my friends have wanted to play over the last... 5 years? Im kinda over it in a big way.

 

[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.

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.

Fanboys? Aren't the fanboys the ones who like the game so much they will defend it no matter what it's flaws? I think your the fanboy, especially when you refuse to understand the complaints and then start to generalise them all when a lot of 'em actually stick. The campaigns are very short, they are all pretty much the same game and they are playing it super safe. I believe they have enough money to build their own empire now and so I reckon they could make a much bigger COD and explore new territory.

Also, don't assume that I'm aggressive, that's as bad as generalising. I'm just using your words against you so you can find out what it's like, and I bet you don't like it.

 

[Wedgetail122]

I Dislike COD becuase of the developers behind the game, Activision, (that and t5he lack of fighter jets) they are extreemly greedy and manage to pull a game out from its nether every year, 2 years of production time is not enough time to create a Single Player Experience thas more than 4 hours gameplay, now there is Call of Duty: Elite, which is a monthly service for a fee, whilst battlefield offers the EXACT SAME SERVICE FOR FREE, then there are the overpriced DLC Map packs, (Which DICE offers for free) then there is the fact that there is nothing new about the game but some more maps, a fancy grenade luancher, and some new kill streaks. Come on, at least Halo 3 got a graphics update. Battleifield, well, we all loved battlefield 2, and Battlefield 3 will not be like Bad Company 2, yes, we will see the same driving mechanics and the same shooting controls, as well as the destructable cover, instead the maps will be more open, large, more weapons with an interesting feel, IMMERSION, it is not realistic, (no game is) but it FEELS realistic, becuase its like your there, considering that you actually have arms and legs and aren't a pair of hands and a gun with a camera masking taped to them. The maps are actually balanced with room for snipers and chocke points, along with suppression points, ablilities and Fighter jets, that and the new bi pod, and the ability to drag your injured teamate into cover to revive him, oh yes and did I mention fighter jets, it feels so good, and fighter jets, FIGHTER JETS!

 

[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.

The more popular it is the more people will have heard of it (yyyyyep). Ergo the more people who would otherwise have not sought it out have now and found it not to their taste.

Honestly I actually think CoD4 is one of the all time greats so I can't exactly be unbiased about this. I usually tend to side with the critics (60 percent of the time at least) and in that regard it is in no way hated. Critics line up to kiss CoD's ass like there's a coupon giveaway involved. That joke was so much funnier in my head. Why am I saying this? Why don't you stop me?

I can't disagree with that, the more popular something gets, the more people have heard of it and the more complaints you will hear about it. However, once again, what you said only sums up at the very least half of the whiners while there are many complaints that do hold ground, and your not challenging them at all.

As for COD 4, it is an awesome game. I thoroughly enjoyed the campaign and that's because it was done very well in many ways, as well as placing me in many different situations that were all quite challenging or scenes that were horrifying. Even though the ending was a bit abrupt, I still have fun playing it over again.

 

[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.

Fanboys? Aren't the fanboys the ones who like the game so much they will defend it no matter what it's flaws? I think your the fanboy, especially when you refuse to understand the complaints and then start to generalise them all when a lot of 'em actually stick. The campaigns are very short, they are all pretty much the same game and they are playing it super safe. I believe they have enough money to build their own empire now and so I reckon they could make a much bigger COD and explore new territory.

Also, don't assume that I'm aggressive, that's as bad as generalising. I'm just using your words against you so you can find out what it's like, and I bet you don't like it.

You are being quite aggressive. You are bringing unnecessary hatred to what I wish to be a casual discussion. I am indeed a fanboy of Call of Duty, however I hate the rivalry with Battlefield. It's an embarrassment to gamers as a whole to be stuck in such a childish argument. I understand what's wrong about each game. CoD 4 had unbalanced perks, MW2 had overpowered weaponry. Generalization is not a bad thing. It is a way to discuss a topic without detailed information. Since I was not given something to be specific about, generalization was a rational and correct response. The campaigns are actually quite long, and I must say, many people are playing the franchise for the story. We want to see the story of Price and MacTavish. They play it safe because they don't have to make radical changes to their game. They already have great sales, they don't need to change everything. They don't need to make a bigger CoD, CoD is already big. That's like making a bigger Zelda. It's already big, it already sells well.

 

[GraveeKing]

What's the point of me just posting the same damn paragraph every time?

So I'll shorten it down a bit:
It's the fact they don't do anything to actually improve the game! Remember when left4dead announced it's sequel everyone was angry because it was 'too soon' and got boycotted so much, well that's how a lot of people have been seeing the modern warfare series; just a new release, not much added or changed - minor improvements that could have been a DLC campaign at most.
So with every new release, and now modern warfare 3 on the way people are beginning to get a bit irritated that nothing has changed, henceforth the hate for a lazily made series.

That wasn't shortened at all was it....
Oh well as long as I NEVER HAVE TO SEE THIS CURSED THREAD AGAIN.

 

[Nazulu]

You are being quite aggressive. You are bringing unnecessary hatred to what I wish to be a casual discussion. I am indeed a fanboy of Call of Duty, however I hate the rivalry with Battlefield. It's an embarrassment to gamers as a whole to be stuck in such a childish argument. I understand what's wrong about each game. CoD 4 had unbalanced perks, MW2 had overpowered weaponry. Generalization is not a bad thing. It is a way to discuss a topic without detailed information. Since I was not given something to be specific about, generalization was a rational and correct response. The campaigns are actually quite long, and I must say, many people are playing the franchise for the story. We want to see the story of Price and MacTavish. They play it safe because they don't have to make radical changes to their game. They already have great sales, they don't need to change everything. They don't need to make a bigger CoD, CoD is already big. That's like making a bigger Zelda. It's already big, it already sells well.

I'll show aggressive if you want it so bad.

You can't have a casual discussion if you keep assuming what I feel and generalising everyone you disagree with, you actually have to challenge the complaints. I think you've done that now though.

Just to make sure, I never brought up Battlefield so don't assume I'm one of those people either. I'm sure the Battlefields are not perfect.

Now, A lot of people can beat the campaigns in 5 hours, which isn't very long. Therefore COD can be said to be pretty small, and since they have lots of money they should be easily able to extend it by double. Wouldn't you rather they made a really big game every 3 years with lots of options and what not for a similar price? I know your thinking in the companies best interests, but in my opinion they are getting away with so little on their plate.

Also, when I say to try something different, I don't mean radical changes to COD, I mean a new franchise, or they could experiment.

Now don't let what I just said bother you. Remember, it's just my opinion, and I have tiny little to no power to actually have any effect on their business.

 

[Snoozer]

I don't get why the Game rewards you for beeing in the lead. If your Team sucks you are getting the double punishment with overpowered dogs and helicopters - that kills any competition. Also does the game not mix the teams even if one has 2 more players.
The campaign is just bad, historicaly inaccurate in a mighty dangerous way and feels like cheap American militairy propaganda. Also do they pretty much release release the same game every other year, with zombies ...

Compare it to any valve game or even the old Cod ...
But Cod is just following the new wanna be cool shooter concept, that ruins every fps nowadays. Maybe CS GO will save the day.

 

[Nazulu]

because old first person shooters were better, presented more of a challenge, had at least some focus on making a single player campaign and didn't charge 60 dollars for whats essentially a patch for the multiplayer

How can they be that much more challenging than COD when you have a very hard option that can get you killed in one shot? I can tell you right now, it's bloody difficult.

 

[ninetails593]

You are being quite aggressive. You are bringing unnecessary hatred to what I wish to be a casual discussion. I am indeed a fanboy of Call of Duty, however I hate the rivalry with Battlefield. It's an embarrassment to gamers as a whole to be stuck in such a childish argument. I understand what's wrong about each game. CoD 4 had unbalanced perks, MW2 had overpowered weaponry. Generalization is not a bad thing. It is a way to discuss a topic without detailed information. Since I was not given something to be specific about, generalization was a rational and correct response. The campaigns are actually quite long, and I must say, many people are playing the franchise for the story. We want to see the story of Price and MacTavish. They play it safe because they don't have to make radical changes to their game. They already have great sales, they don't need to change everything. They don't need to make a bigger CoD, CoD is already big. That's like making a bigger Zelda. It's already big, it already sells well.

I'll show aggressive if you want it so bad.

You can't have a casual discussion if you keep assuming what I feel and generalising everyone you disagree with, you actually have to challenge the complaints. I think you've done that now though.

Just to make sure, I never brought up Battlefield so don't assume I'm one of those people either. I'm sure the Battlefields are not perfect.

Now, A lot of people can beat the campaigns in 5 hours, which isn't very long. Therefore COD can be said to be pretty small, and since they have lots of money they should be easily able to extend it by double. Wouldn't you rather they made a really big game every 3 years with lots of options and what not for a similar price? I know your thinking in the companies best interests, but in my opinion they are getting away with so little on their plate.

Also, when I say to try something different, I don't mean radical changes to COD, I mean a new franchise, or they could experiment.

Now don't let what I just said bother you. Remember, it's just my opinion, and I have tiny little to no power to actually have any effect on their business.

Well speedrunners can beat Ocarina of Time in an hour, that doesn't mean it's the length of the game. You don't seem to understand, money isn't a magic growth elixir. If Ubisoft suddenly got double their money, we wouldn't be seeing Assassin's Creed 5, we'd be seeing Assassin's Creed. What would you define as a "bigger game"? And for that matter, if they make a bigger game, why do you say it should be for a similar price? Getting away without putting much on your plate is a good thing. If you're able to stay healthy with a small amount of food, congratulations, you aren't likely to starve to death. Again, they do not need to experiment. They are fine where they are, and where they are is a massive fanbase and a massive wallet. Quite frankly, you could say whatever you want, you could say you're the president of Activision, and I wouldn't care. It's the internet, your opinion is just text on my screen. Your ideas aren't shocking either, they're just ideas.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Total lack of skill.
Short as shit single player.
(Recently) Crap stories.
ZERO innovation.
Breeding ground for the scum of gaming.

And for the record, I don't care for Battlefield much either. I hope gaming can get this whole Realist War Shooter thing out of it's system soon like an inconvenient period on a honeymoon night.

 

[Nazulu]

Well speedrunners can beat Ocarina of Time in an hour, that doesn't mean it's the length of the game. You don't seem to understand, money isn't a magic growth elixir. If Ubisoft suddenly got double their money, we wouldn't be seeing Assassin's Creed 5, we'd be seeing Assassin's Creed. What would you define as a "bigger game"? And for that matter, if they make a bigger game, why do you say it should be for a similar price? Getting away without putting much on your plate is a good thing. If you're able to stay healthy with a small amount of food, congratulations, you aren't likely to starve to death. Again, they do not need to experiment. They are fine where they are, and where they are is a massive fanbase and a massive wallet. Quite frankly, you could say whatever you want, you could say you're the president of Activision, and I wouldn't care. It's the internet, your opinion is just text on my screen. Your ideas aren't shocking either, they're just ideas.

How about your opinion is just your opinion, like I said before. I'm quite aware I'm not going to convince you but this is all just fun for me.

Now, speed runs are different. They are done by highly talented freaks, while I'm saying the average gamer can defeat the game in 5 hours. With more money you can accomplish anything (well, it allows for more). As they say "money makes the world go round". And I mean bigger as more missions and options and whatever springs into our imagination. The games are small and that's why they will continue to receive complaints till the end of time. You telling me it's good for business and that you don't care will not make it go anywhere. Even though a lot of the fanbase isn't looking for anything special (like you), a lot find it just stagnation and fight it so they can't just get away with whatever. That's what a lot of these big businesses want, to get as much money as possible while giving as little to the customer. If it wasn't for anyone complaining you'd probably be getting less for a higher price a while a go.

 

[Vibhor]

because old first person shooters were better, presented more of a challenge, had at least some focus on making a single player campaign and didn't charge 60 dollars for whats essentially a patch for the multiplayer

How can they be that much more challenging than COD when you have a very hard option that can get you killed in one shot? I can tell you right now, it's bloody difficult.

You would be surprised. Challenge doesn't mean that you can die from one shot. Look at the new deus ex, you only take a few shots to die but the game is still pretty easy.

 

[Nazulu]

because old first person shooters were better, presented more of a challenge, had at least some focus on making a single player campaign and didn't charge 60 dollars for whats essentially a patch for the multiplayer

How can they be that much more challenging than COD when you have a very hard option that can get you killed in one shot? I can tell you right now, it's bloody difficult.

You would be surprised. Challenge doesn't mean that you can die from one shot. Look at the new deus ex, you only take a few shots to die but the game is still pretty easy.

Fair enough, but there are missions I think in all the COD's where you'll have to run a stretch in front of enemy fire and it can be very painful. I can't even beat COD 4 on the last difficulty which is the one I played recently. Then again, I am your average gamer, I'm not great at any game, but I still think it's a very thin line in comparison to the past.