I know this isn't quite what you meant, but Call of Duty would be instantly back on my radar if Pseudogiants and Bloodsucker came crashing through the ceiling.deathbydeath said:
Plus anomalies turning up in multiplayer would be brilliant...
Let's talk about Call of Duty
- Thread starter ImmortalDrifter
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Plus anomalies turning up in multiplayer would be brilliant...
To address your point on stopping power, it was indeed an overpowered perk. It gave all players using it a 33.3% damage buff, meaning that anyone who wasn't using stopping power was put at a massive disadvantage when facing someone who was running it. This basically meant chaining your second perk to stopping power, unless running a specialized class for say anti air. You are simply less effective as a player in a gunfight without it.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
In regards to Ghost, treyarch did balance it in that you only reaming hidden as long as you remain mobile, as well as splitting the immunity to killstreaks into a different perk in the same tier, essentially forcing you to chose between one and the other.
As for killstreak stacking, it is present in Blops 2 (there is no support or specialist btw). But there's a catch. Killstreaks are now earned via score, for example a UAV costs 300 points. it doesn't matter how you get them, be it through assists or capping flags. So when a lethal killstreak is used, you will still gain points, but at a reduced rate. For example, their equivalent of an ac-130 only awards 25 points per kill instead of the normal 100.
Finally in regards to the campaign, it is a shame you want it cut considering what treyarch is doing with it in blops 2. There is a new series of levels in campaign called strike force missions. You get to select which one you partake in (you cannot do all strike missions in a single run) and you are plunked down into a sandbox with a set of objectives. What really makes it interesting is that you control a force of both human and robotic allies, either through an rts style of gameplay, setting waypoints and targeting enemies, or by assuming direct control of individual units of your choosing. What's more you can actually fail strike force missions, you aren't kicked back to your last checkpoint. You failed to achieve your objective, and that will reflect in one of the multiple endings of the game, as well as wat missions you went on in the first place.
I think most of your arguments are fine OP but I do take issue with the last one. Yeah, you probably aren't stupid, and you probably do just enjoy the game more than me, but the fact is that there are hordes of people throwing money at a company for releasing the same game over and over, all the while the companies that take risks and try to innovate and bring something new to the gaming scene suffer. It just pisses me off is all.
Also, YOU may be intelligent enough to see what is going on, but my friends sure aren't.
Also, YOU may be intelligent enough to see what is going on, but my friends sure aren't.
I like Call of Duty, actually. Well, the Treyarch ones. And honestly, it is one of the better online games I've played. Borderlands 1 (haven't played 2 online with someone else hosting) had lag issues, and I only ever found maybe 1 or 2 servers in Duke Nukem Forever that didn't have serious lag issues.
This seems to be a double edged sword, though. Look at how much hate the Final Fantasy series gets, and with the exception of direct sequels (X-2, XIII-2), they change a lot of the game up every time (completely new characters, worlds, story, battle system, etc). Make changes to a game, people ***** that something has changed. Leave it the same, people ***** that they are just putting out the same games over and over again.
When you think about it, they do change more than most sport games do. Different settings, some different guns, etc. Sure the engine is the same, and they don't change as much as they could, but still more than Madden.miketehmage said:
This seems to be a double edged sword, though. Look at how much hate the Final Fantasy series gets, and with the exception of direct sequels (X-2, XIII-2), they change a lot of the game up every time (completely new characters, worlds, story, battle system, etc). Make changes to a game, people ***** that something has changed. Leave it the same, people ***** that they are just putting out the same games over and over again.
I enjoy the multiplayer myself because it's repetitive. I want to just sit down and do something that doesn't need too much thought.
Personally I preferred the CoD 4 system of killstreaks at 3,5 and 7, and I preferred CoD 4's maps to the new ones. But It's still fun.
As to them releasing the same game every year, okay it's pretty similar...but go back and play the old ones and see how they've changed. I've only bought two CoD games, MW3 and WaW. Both preowned and I even got WaW free...if you don't like buying a new game twice a year then you're really not being forced.
One thing I wish they would do would be to keep supporting their old games after they release a new one, WaW has been pretty my taken over by hackers now, CoD 4 probably too...which is sad, because I like those games.
Personally I preferred the CoD 4 system of killstreaks at 3,5 and 7, and I preferred CoD 4's maps to the new ones. But It's still fun.
As to them releasing the same game every year, okay it's pretty similar...but go back and play the old ones and see how they've changed. I've only bought two CoD games, MW3 and WaW. Both preowned and I even got WaW free...if you don't like buying a new game twice a year then you're really not being forced.
One thing I wish they would do would be to keep supporting their old games after they release a new one, WaW has been pretty my taken over by hackers now, CoD 4 probably too...which is sad, because I like those games.
I don't believe you can legitimately criticize a game for its player base, but if I am being honest, I have stopped playing the franchise's multiplayer almost completely because of it. The verbal abuse is mind blowing at times to me, and I distinctly remember an instance in which my entire team began to 'shoot-at' and toss explosives at one of our own just because his ID had 'gay_pride' in it. Allowing voice chat only makes things worse for me.
But again, that only applies to some cases, and in any case it is not exactly a part of the game itself.
I do like the point you raised that a game being 'repetitive' is not a valid argument, unless you're willing to admit the same of some of the better games made.
What I truly dislike about the game is its focus on insubstantial gimicks. I liked the first modern Warfare title a lot, though I knew the sequel would be awful and skipped it. However I gave Black Ops a chance as it was made by a different developer team, so I couldn't make any assumptions right away. Of course, as we all know, what I got was one of the worst gaming experiences of my entire life; nearly everything in the game's campaign is completely arbitrary in nature, like harpooning a helicopter during a prison riot, causing a PSOne quality explosion. Or pulling the pins out of a man's grenades and watching him explode in a quick time event. . Or playing on a multiplayer map so small, absolutely no action could possibly carry any weight. Or making nearly every line of already-awful-dialogue rife with swearing because that's a child's idea of 'maturity'. Etc. Etc.
Fast forward to now, to Black Ops 2, and we see things like horse-back riding sequences, which are surely much akin to the auto-pilot, Tap-R1-To-Proceed motorcycle sequence from the first Black Ops. It's pretty much a guarantee at this point that the levels will be a series of textured blocks to crouch behind and shoot things from, and not even a soundtrack composed by Jack Wall will make it more interesting than the couch you sit on when you play it.
It seems to be all flash, and no substance.
But again, that only applies to some cases, and in any case it is not exactly a part of the game itself.
I do like the point you raised that a game being 'repetitive' is not a valid argument, unless you're willing to admit the same of some of the better games made.
What I truly dislike about the game is its focus on insubstantial gimicks. I liked the first modern Warfare title a lot, though I knew the sequel would be awful and skipped it. However I gave Black Ops a chance as it was made by a different developer team, so I couldn't make any assumptions right away. Of course, as we all know, what I got was one of the worst gaming experiences of my entire life; nearly everything in the game's campaign is completely arbitrary in nature, like harpooning a helicopter during a prison riot, causing a PSOne quality explosion. Or pulling the pins out of a man's grenades and watching him explode in a quick time event. . Or playing on a multiplayer map so small, absolutely no action could possibly carry any weight. Or making nearly every line of already-awful-dialogue rife with swearing because that's a child's idea of 'maturity'. Etc. Etc.
Fast forward to now, to Black Ops 2, and we see things like horse-back riding sequences, which are surely much akin to the auto-pilot, Tap-R1-To-Proceed motorcycle sequence from the first Black Ops. It's pretty much a guarantee at this point that the levels will be a series of textured blocks to crouch behind and shoot things from, and not even a soundtrack composed by Jack Wall will make it more interesting than the couch you sit on when you play it.
It seems to be all flash, and no substance.
The main issue I have with COD and I am sure this is more what people complain about when they complain about what COD is doing to the industry is the yearly sequels. It has shown the industry that they can make a successful game and then release it multiple times with nothing more than a few changes that could have been DLC or even just a patch.
One other thing you do hear about COD every year, often in reviews is the quote it makes tweaks to the formula but it is still the COD you know or something along the lines of that and that just isn't good enough for a sequel.
One other thing you do hear about COD every year, often in reviews is the quote it makes tweaks to the formula but it is still the COD you know or something along the lines of that and that just isn't good enough for a sequel.
This argument is pulled with most online shooters, I agree, it's stupid.ImmortalDrifter said:
That is very much a cop out argument, considering the fact that CoD as a series over all has the highest concentration of sexists, if anything else. I can't say much for the other stuff, that's reasonably spread throughtout the internet, but CoD as a series has ALWAYS had a sexist following, more so than most other games.
First of all, TF2 updates quite a bit. It is repetitive, but at least it gives you a new place to go every few weeks. It has a nicer community, Valve has a decent relationship with it's fans, and the characters are more interesting than anyone in CoD. Secondly, just because other games are repetitive doesn't give CoD a free pass to be so damn repetitive over the course of the entire goddamned series just because it takes the Flak.
Well no, we can be angry at Cod, because instead of using it's position of power and knowing that people will try to ape it, it hasn't changed its very formulaic chestpounding routine at all in it's entire series, thus leading to it cloning itself again and again, then the clones being spawned into the many series trying to make a quick buck. It's not its fault that it was copied, but it is it's fault that we've have so many shitty fps'.
I'm sorry, but how is any of what you've said a good thing? You've just pointed out your own sheepish mentality into spending 60 bucks a year for the exact same thing you spent 60 bucks on last year, just with a few extra bells and whistles? This isn't a strong argument, this actually shows the kind of instant gratification mentality that keeps these games from ever shaking up the formula and trying something interesting.
The biggest problem that I have with CoD is, quite simply, the campaign. At least after the first Modern Warfare, I cannot say that any CoD game has had a solid campaign. They are so poorly written, so bat-shit insane and lacking in any semblance of so-called realism that it reduces the entire series (which had potential) to nothing more than ludicrous set pieces involving a bunch of faceless nobodies that we don't care about. When I say that it lacks realism, I do know that these games are not meant to be realistic (few games could do that). However, we should be taking issue with the fact that thousands of people heap so much praise on it for being "realistic", when it is not. And that so-called realism completely juxtaposes the ridiculousness of what is happening on screen that I cannot loses myself in the experience like I could in MW1. If the games after MW1 were parodies, they might work a little better; Alas, they are not and they do not.
Oh, and Infinity Ward, just because a little girl died does not mean that I have to care. That was the worst display of shallow manipulation that I have ever seen in a video game and everybody who works there should feel ashamed of themselves. Thanks MW3!
Oh, and Infinity Ward, just because a little girl died does not mean that I have to care. That was the worst display of shallow manipulation that I have ever seen in a video game and everybody who works there should feel ashamed of themselves. Thanks MW3!
This is a nearly perfect summary of my thoughts on the subject.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
I've been a fan of CoD games since I got my hands on the demo for the first game, although the 2nd one was the first full game I got. So far I'm in the "every other game is good" camp, having spent most of my time in CoD2, 4 and 6(MW2).
I will never take CoD "seriously" as an FPS as I've grown up with games like Counter-Strike and Quake as the serious competitive big-shots, but the CoD games have been incredibly fun over the years and MW2 got the fun formula nearly bang on. Especially the maps, the MW2 maps were awesome and the biggest let-down with MW3 for me was the maps; in my opinion they are all terrible. Saying "in my opinion" is a bit redundant, but other people apparently love the game, including my friend who's been my brother-in-CoD in MW and MW2. Map design is something I don't really know much about so I can't say much of value about them, but it feels as if they lack choke points at least.
And yeah, just too much stuff. The Barebones modes in MW2 were great, but they never had any players when the game was still relevant, now that MW3 is out and BO2 on the doorstep it's completely dead.
I so wish they just polished the MW2 MP because with most games you can say "oh, the old games don't go away", but in this case they do: The only reason I play CoD games is the multiplayer, and while you can still find decent CoD4 servers the MW2 playerbase is pretty much gone.
My biggest issue with CoD isn't to do with the game itself, but more the community that it seems to attract.
Sure, there are people out there who play CoD and are genuinely good people, playing fairly and behaving, but it seems like every time I go on MW3's multiplayer, I encounter people swearing at each other and/or a hacker.
And not a subtle hacker either. I'm talking people who sit 30 feet in the air and coat the entire map with RPG rounds.
Or people that cause the enemy team to spawn 30 feet in the air and fall to their deaths constantly.
Or people that throw 20+ grenades/C4 non-stop.
Or people that call in AC-130s non-stop.
Seriously. The PC version of MW3 is ruined by the very people that play it. I've encountered more hackers in a 30 minute session of it than I have in, say, 300+ hours of TF2.
Sure, there are people out there who play CoD and are genuinely good people, playing fairly and behaving, but it seems like every time I go on MW3's multiplayer, I encounter people swearing at each other and/or a hacker.
And not a subtle hacker either. I'm talking people who sit 30 feet in the air and coat the entire map with RPG rounds.
Or people that cause the enemy team to spawn 30 feet in the air and fall to their deaths constantly.
Or people that throw 20+ grenades/C4 non-stop.
Or people that call in AC-130s non-stop.
Seriously. The PC version of MW3 is ruined by the very people that play it. I've encountered more hackers in a 30 minute session of it than I have in, say, 300+ hours of TF2.
Hmm... Balanced views, for the most part. I'll say that I'm an occasional fan of some aspects, and I do buy it yearly, but I won't pay for another Modern Warfare. I'll get Treyarch's every 2. I use multiplayer as an interactive Facebook. I joke around with a few friends, have some fun with some ludicrous guns (like that under-mount flamethrower. It's so hard to use, it's fun!) and torment those with ignorant attitudes. I like to think I'm good with accents, so I pretend to be Irish for one match, Scottish for another Jamaican the next, and so on. It really fucks with people. And it weeds out the racists so I can headhunt them.
The reason why CoD needs to stop is because of genre fatiuge.
Its happened to fighters, RTS, space sim, and 4X, i wouldnt be surprised if within the next few years that one of the 5 CoD studios will fuck it up in a big way and it will put the entire FPS genre under for a few years while everyone worth a shit moves onto the various strains of RPG and MOBA.
Its happened to fighters, RTS, space sim, and 4X, i wouldnt be surprised if within the next few years that one of the 5 CoD studios will fuck it up in a big way and it will put the entire FPS genre under for a few years while everyone worth a shit moves onto the various strains of RPG and MOBA.
It's a game made for as cheap as possible to make as much money as possible and to appeal to as many people as possible.
People like it, that's the point.
It's not my type of game, but, I can see why people would buy into it, it's kinda what Activision Blizzard is going for with the series.
It is not a great game, it does not deserve the accolades and lofting it gets.
It's not a poorly made game, there's nothing "Wrong" with it, but, "Being fun to a lot of people" does not make something great.
For me, CoD represents a lot of what is wrong with the industry.
It's popular therefore it's taboo for anyone in any position to state anything negative or "Not great" about the game, you'll either be hounded by fan boys for saying that the game isn't the second coming of christ, or fired by the company you work for due to the bad press being negative of a popular game brings.
It's popular, so almost every other significant publisher tries to make their own version to take some part of the market. Every shooter has to conform to certain standards, it has to have classes, it has to load outs, we're even getting to the stage where not having ADS is a negative trait.
And worst of all, it's almost entirely stagnant. It does nothing new, rarely does it even try to for fear of slight alienation that might reduce it's profit margins, it's a game made by scared developers on the command of scared publishers, fearing that even the slightest bit of innovation may cost them even the smallest cent.
So, I guess a lot of my issues are from the business practices around the company that makes this game.
I played MW2, it was okay, nothing special. I had "Fun" if that's what you what, I later moved on to PC games and lost interest in console oriented shooters, but, I had some fun when I played it.
People like it, that's the point.
It's not my type of game, but, I can see why people would buy into it, it's kinda what Activision Blizzard is going for with the series.
It is not a great game, it does not deserve the accolades and lofting it gets.
It's not a poorly made game, there's nothing "Wrong" with it, but, "Being fun to a lot of people" does not make something great.
For me, CoD represents a lot of what is wrong with the industry.
It's popular therefore it's taboo for anyone in any position to state anything negative or "Not great" about the game, you'll either be hounded by fan boys for saying that the game isn't the second coming of christ, or fired by the company you work for due to the bad press being negative of a popular game brings.
It's popular, so almost every other significant publisher tries to make their own version to take some part of the market. Every shooter has to conform to certain standards, it has to have classes, it has to load outs, we're even getting to the stage where not having ADS is a negative trait.
And worst of all, it's almost entirely stagnant. It does nothing new, rarely does it even try to for fear of slight alienation that might reduce it's profit margins, it's a game made by scared developers on the command of scared publishers, fearing that even the slightest bit of innovation may cost them even the smallest cent.
So, I guess a lot of my issues are from the business practices around the company that makes this game.
I played MW2, it was okay, nothing special. I had "Fun" if that's what you what, I later moved on to PC games and lost interest in console oriented shooters, but, I had some fun when I played it.
Your score streak resets when you die, but if you have acquired something like a deathmachine you get to use every round in it even if you die before that.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Well not exactly but it does take three points.Lucky Godzilla said:
On topic: I think people who don't play Cod almost at all aren't really in the position to say how copy-pasted they are. As someone who has put a lot of time in every Cod since MW I could instantly tell them apart based on graphical style, weapons, maps, animation, and yes, graphical quality. Also, every Cod I've played has been quite different compared to others. If there's anything wrong with the series, it's the overpriced DLC, horrible single player and catering to noobs and "casuals" with autoaim, deathstreaks, zero recoil etc.
You may have missed the fact that you do not have to control it like an RTS, you can select and jump between any of your units at any time. If you want to play the entire mission as a grunt, go ahead you can do it, if you want to jump around all of your units, playing as a flying drone one second and a walking tank the next, you can do it. And of course you can play it all from the perspective of an rts. As for the rest of the campaign, I think it is best to reserve judgement for when the game is released.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Going back to stopping power, the real issue is that when two people start shooting at each other at the same time, the winner should go to the person with the better aim right? That's not the case with stopping power, with it you can afford to be sloppy as the increased damage will compensate for lack of skill.
After reading this post and a few of the ones following it, I have only 1 thing to say:SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
Fucking spot on.
Stopping power was great for when I felt like being loud. When I wanted quiet, I had a stealth setup where I could literally lay behind a corner and watch 4 people run by me because that "ENEMY UAV IS ONLINE" phrase that you hear oh so very often dictates that their entire team now has their eyes glued to that minimap like 2 buddies screen peeking off each other in a split screen game.
I fucking loved it.
Oh hey, I like playing the CoD games almost purely for the single player as well... I generally suck at multiplayer (and hell, I suck at the single player as well) thanks to being colour blind, so the amount of times the screen has fuzzed because of friendly fire is ridiculous.King Billi said:
Anyway, what this guy said...
Though I'll add that I enjoy the games for another reason: the soundtrack. Seriously, MW2 is all the more enjoyable to me because I've got Hans Zimmer rockin' it in the background!