Defending Call of Duty

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

To me CoD just seems like same-shit different day. The single player is too hollywood and not enough "player"

The multiplayer just makes it seem like a regular arena shooter like TF2. Run around in a small area shooting eachother with guns. Not really any variety.
CoD: WaW was pretty cool IMO because of the tanks. They added SOME sense of tactics to the game rather than just spawn camp the enemy hurr-durr. You couldn't just "quickscope" the enemy tank. You had to have someone with a panzerschreck or satchels take it out. Artillery and other tanks also worked.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, CoD is a game with very little variety because the player base doesn't like thinking with their head, thus the developers stick with the "very little variety" motto.

 

[purf]

Frankly, this article is as Bullshit as it gets.

I almost stopped reading when, on the first page: "All of the elements of the original Call of Duty that hardcore gamers loved are still present in the series" How about NO. The original Call of Duty, which I hold dear, told you that 'here is an open area with a trench and a 4-story house - now fight off the enemy waves'. Now it's: 'man the turret at the objective marker and shoot it for 5 minutes'.

Spoiler: A telltale scene

There was this bit in Black Ops where you are in the Pentagon, about to meet Kennedy. So I am walking down this corridNOO! Whoops, I am not walking down the corridor, the game walks me. I am allowed to look around. A secretary passes me and she gives me the eye and I think "hah, yeah, game, you want me to look at her ass, right? Okay, here ya go".
Well... as I've found out later, in a second unfinished playthrough, it wasn't my hand on the mouse looking after her. It was, indeed the game itself. I do not even have the freedom to decide not to look at some chick's ass.

And then, "Bang for Bucks"?? For real, author? To date, Black Ops is the most expensive game I'ver ever bought. And it is still 60 Euros, two years after release. How is this Bang for Bucks? "and that's because there's simply so much to do" And that is what, exactly? In comparison to SkyrimFalloutAssassinsCreedWitcherGuildWars2Minecraftevenetcpp, all of which are cheaper?

 

[CarlMin]

The only reason I can possibly see for a PC gamer to dislike MW3 is the lack of a FOV-slider. That's about it really, which Black Ops had and Black Ops 2 most probably will have, and far from all other PC games have.

See even that criticism is pretty unfounded in my opinion. But then again, there is no rationality about this CoD-hate. It's just a trend really. People want to feel as if their opinions are original so they criticize whatever is popular.

They forget that in their attempt to be original, they ironically just join the masses of people who all hate CoD for no reason in particular other than that it happened to be popular.

 

[CarlMin]

To me CoD just seems like same-shit different day. The single player is too hollywood and not enough "player"

The multiplayer just makes it seem like a regular arena shooter like TF2. Run around in a small area shooting eachother with guns. Not really any variety.
CoD: WaW was pretty cool IMO because of the tanks. They added SOME sense of tactics to the game rather than just spawn camp the enemy hurr-durr. You couldn't just "quickscope" the enemy tank. You had to have someone with a panzerschreck or satchels take it out. Artillery and other tanks also worked.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, CoD is a game with very little variety because the player base doesn't like thinking with their head, thus the developers stick with the "very little variety" motto.

Firstly, just out of curiousity, how old are you?

Secondly, just because a shooter doesn't have the same variety as your common RPG doesn't mean the people who enjoy it are dumber. If anything, if you think you can define a player's intelligence by which games he or she enjoy, that probably says more about how you use your head.

In regards to variety. Take the Counter Strike Series, which are all fairly lacking in variety compared to Call of Duty. Yet, CS is highly competitive and tactical. Do you think it would be better if they included more weapons, vehicles, larger maps and whatever else you define as variety in a shooter? Absolutely not, it would make Counter Strike much worse and considerable less fun to play, especially for its core fans.

To think that variety dictates how enjoyable and tactical a multiplayer shooter can be is simply stupid. The factors that makes a good shooter are more subtle than that.

 

[F'Angus]

I've only bought two CoD games WaW and MW3...but I really do like CoD, I've played all of them (except MW2) tonnes. I agree that there is little change, but hell it's fun anyway. You don't have to buy two a year if you don't want.

 

[crazyrabbits]

To start with, I've played far better FREE FPS's. War Rock, a game made in 2004/5 (it was korean only in 2004 but became international around 2005/6), for example. It was completely free to download ever since 2006. I've played it for around 800-900 hours and it's possibly the game that i've spent the most hours on.
It had drivable vehicles ever since it came out. Quite a lot of weapons. Many maps.

I actually went and looked this up online - it got mediocre reviews across the board, and has an F2P multiplayer model that basically requires you to pay to access all the rest of the features. Not really a comparative example.

America's Army

...is/was a glorified training simulator. Sure, it has co-op missions, but that's about all the appeal it has going for it. I haven't played it since its original incarnation, but I remember that it only had a handful of maps at the time.

I think there's probably less than 50% (being generous) of people who actually buy CoD who will actually even start up the campaign, much less bother to finish it.

If your claim was true, there would be no point for the single-player campaign in the first place, seeing as Activision is still reluctant to package the multiplayer component on its own. The campaign works very well for what it is - a four to five hour thrill ride that is incredibly polished. You may not like the content (I do), but it's still a hit with most people, regardless of the inevitable hype backlash.

For what it is, CoD still provides some of the best value out there (and no, I'm not talking like a fanboy). You get the SP campaign, multiplayer, co-op and (in some games) bonus modes that make it worth the selling price. It's the FPS equivalent of a Madden or NHL title, and it works well enough for what it is.

 

[The White Hunter]

I don't hate cod. I am just honestly tired of it. I decided to get Black Ops because it looked like it was doing some things different and I was essentially done with it by the weekend.

I had some great times with CoD, don't get me wrong. CoD2 was the thing that basically got me into console shooters(was a PC shooter fan for a long time). CoD4 was great. I had great times with WaW with friends especially with zombies.

Then MW2 was a buggy, broken mess, and Black Ops was just boring. Didn't bother picking up MW3 and I don't see that changing for Black Ops II.

I want sales for CoD to slow not because I want the series to fail, but because I want the series to move forward in a meaningful so I can be excited for CoD again. I'll wait and see what they do in the next gen.

I myself wasn't planning on picking up Black Ops 2 becuase I typically prefer the IW iterations and ejoy spec ops a lot more than zombies, but I actually looked into it a bit and they seem to be genuinely trying to innovate this time to me. The diverging campaign sounds interesting, as do the strike missions which, if failed, are failed and the story mopves on regardless, theya lso give you much more freedom and the strike missions read to me like a rainbox six-style experience (though almost definately less brutal).

Throw in the tranZit mode in zombies, which seems more like left 4 dead (something I really do enjoy with some friends around and a few drinks, and something CoD provides with excellent split-screen support in almost every game), the changes to multiplayer to make it more teamplayer friendly, as well as friendly for those who may well get a k/d of 30-5, but don't get all 30 of those kills in one or two lives (I'm more of a kill 2-6 people then die while reloading kinda guy), and it seems crammed with content both safe and fresh.

I'm seriously a bit excited for it now.

That said the biggest problem I have with CoD, has absolutely nothing to do with CoD itself, I'm yet to not enjoy a CoD game (though Blops is... well it's ugly and a giant movie rip off and so on), the issue I have is with the rest of the industry trying desperately to achieve it's sales figures and it's revenues, but by doing exactly the same things. The things CoD does best.

And that's poisoning this industry, I adored the Bad Company games and what I've played of other Battlefield games before BF3, where you can see the desire for CoD sales becoming copy-cat behaviours, seeping through in the map design in multiplayer as the gameplay itself, along with the narrative structure and poacing of the campaign.

Even Assassin's Creed is showing symptoms of this problem, with Ac3 featuring a lot of action and a lot of patriotic bullshit, but very little philosophical contemplations and sneaky assassinations, which is what I and many others found so brilliant about AC and AC2.

I really do like Call of Duty. But I like other games too, and I'd rather have that variety. If you release a game that's a blatant CoD clone in every way, then I won't buy your game, because the odds are, CoD is doing it better. The industry needs to stop chasing that green eyed dragon with dollar signs in their eyes.

Well. That's off my chest.

 

[Blazing Steel]

I love me some CoD for some FPS action with my mates and because of the fast paced campaigns. For me I get enough enjoyment to justify the purchase.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

I love CoD. Single Player and Multi Player. I never understood all the hate, as far as I'm concerned the only real downside is that campaign is a bit short but I still get 20+ hous of enjoyment from each game, at least...

 

[TK421]

CoD isn't bad, but they need to stop making "sequels" that are eerily similar to the predecessors. I would have no problem with the Call of Duty games if they stopped making new games and just came out with an expansion each year. For me, the difference between MW2 and MW3 would have been worth $30, but not $60.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I didn't understand why people didn't like Black Ops' story either. It's a good story. But apparantly saying one line too much (The numbers) equals a bad story. I didn't think BO had a great story, but much better than I expected.

I thought it was great up until you found out what was really going on, then the last level was just so anti-climatic that it really set it back. But I enjoy the games Treyarch makes, so that is my "defense" for Call of Duty.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Yeah, I have to agree with the article, but my thing is that CoD claims to be a realistic shooter and people tend to take their ideas about certain guns from the series. The last actual realistic CoD in terms of guns was probably CoD 2. I'm absolutely sick of arguments where I keep hearing about how crap the FN F2000 is in real life because it was the worst assault rifle in MW2, or how the AT4 can lock on to vehicles, or how the P90 is the best submachine gun in the world and the FiveseveN is the best handgun in the world.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Call of Duty needs no defending. If you still enjoy the game, good for you.

Enjoying it doesn't make the problems with the franchise any less rampant. You can still have the most polished shooting in the genre but when you keep putting out the same shit it gets old. And the article saying the MP adds slight tweaks to it isn't a defence. It still feels like you're playing the same multiplayer and same old story(with BO being an exception).

 

[Lonewolfm16]

The franchise sells billions of copies and could cure poverty in most third world countries.

COD isn't a baby. It doesn't need bloody defending.

It's one of those weird things, yes it sells well and gets good reviews, but this doesn't stop it from being a internet punching bag.

 

[alphamalet]

The franchise sells billions of copies and could cure poverty in most third world countries.

COD isn't a baby. It doesn't need bloody defending.

It's one of those weird things, yes it sells well and gets good reviews, but this doesn't stop it from being a internet punching bag.

Again, who cares? I hate Call of Duty, but it doesn't need defending from me. It will be the biggest selling game of the year this year, just like the three previous years. I think COD will be fine, and doesn't need defending.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

To me CoD just seems like same-shit different day. The single player is too hollywood and not enough "player"

The multiplayer just makes it seem like a regular arena shooter like TF2. Run around in a small area shooting eachother with guns. Not really any variety.
CoD: WaW was pretty cool IMO because of the tanks. They added SOME sense of tactics to the game rather than just spawn camp the enemy hurr-durr. You couldn't just "quickscope" the enemy tank. You had to have someone with a panzerschreck or satchels take it out. Artillery and other tanks also worked.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, CoD is a game with very little variety because the player base doesn't like thinking with their head, thus the developers stick with the "very little variety" motto.

Firstly, just out of curiousity, how old are you?

Secondly, just because a shooter doesn't have the same variety as your common RPG doesn't mean the people who enjoy it are dumber. If anything, if you think you can define a player's intelligence by which games he or she enjoy, that probably says more about how you use your head.

In regards to variety. Take the Counter Strike Series, which are all fairly lacking in variety compared to Call of Duty. Yet, CS is highly competitive and tactical. Do you think it would be better if they included more weapons, vehicles, larger maps and whatever else you define as variety in a shooter? Absolutely not, it would make Counter Strike much worse and considerable less fun to play, especially for its core fans.

To think that variety dictates how enjoyable and tactical a multiplayer shooter can be is simply stupid. The factors that makes a good shooter are more subtle than that.

I guess I was being a little insulting. I'm not saying the players are dumb. I'm saying they like playing a game that doesn't require much thinking.

I've played both CS (not GO) and CoD. CoD's gameplay can be defined as a clusterfuck, with maybe an exception of SnD (which in my experience usually devolves into the last guy standing still while the other team tries to 360 no scope him. CS is a one life game (except for TDM which is rarely played) so people pretty much have to play cautiously/tactically. Also, CS wouldn't be CS if they jammed larger maps more guns and vehicles into it.

To think that variety dictates how enjoyable and tactical a multiplayer shooter can be is simply stupid. The factors that makes a good shooter are more subtle than that.

Variety is also a factor that makes a good shooter. Nothing dictates a shooter apart from being able to shoot.

 

[someonehairy-ish]

COD4 was a truly great game, and every game since has been at least on par. The games work well enough mechanically. They reward skill in the MP, but also allow new players to at least get a couple of kills through 'noob tactics' like the grenade launcher.
The graphics may not be something to rave about now, but I don't think anyone could call the games particularly ugly.
The single player campaigns are overblown and have more in common with ott action films than actual warfare, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Adrenaline junkie types will still get a kick out of them, and most players are looking elsewhere for deep SP experiences anyway.

All in all, nothing about any of the COD games is bad, per se, just samey.