Let's talk about Call of Duty

[TheSapphireKnight]

I just wish CoD would go away for awhile. Not because I hate it, I just want some time to miss it. CoD has been (slowly) evolving but it is rather difficult for many to notice when it comes out every year with such incremental changes. If you look at BO 2 and then look the earlier MW1+cods there are some decent changes.

The yearly schedule wasn't really an issue at first because many were simply waiting for the next IW game so you could build community without seeing the previous games developer support dropped almost immediately.

It is unfortunate IW never got to separate MW from the CoD label I feel like then we could have seen the two diverge and create two happier niches which would likely have overlap regardless. They could have succeeded in that regard where EA has failed (with BF and MoH) and MS has succeeded(with Halo and Gears). Though the idea of avoiding the yearly release through two distinct franchises is a sound one only BF has found any real success compared to MoH.

Activision could have had its cake and eaten it too. Had it let IW do its own thing with MW2 so they could have had two successful franchises under IW and Treyarch and I feel look better in the eyes of the gaming community. Instead they have chosen to milk the daylights out of it every year and I hope that they get punished for it eventually(as I would hope regardless of the franchise).

 

[Calcium]

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.

I'm wondering where you're getting that knowledge. I don't imagine there's any clear statistics for that sort of thing. It has one of the largest followings, so that may imply that it has the largest number of sexists. But you could also say the series has the largest non-sexist following too from that.

As for sexist behaviour in other games/genres, I can remember this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/5436-Not-Okay

And as for Starcraft 2 which the guy tried to claim had no sexism... Starcraft 2 has extremely few female professionals. The last time I saw Acer.Scarlett play, the mods in the twitch chat were completely unable to control the amount of sexist bile spewed everywhere. People without sexist views were almost completely drowned out. The mods had to recruit new mods from viewers they knew to be reasonable just to get a hold of the situation, and even then it's uncertain if they managed to because of the extra mods or because the match which she was playing was ending.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you can find sexism in most genres. In that single twitch chat of a single game featuring a female player I've seen/heard more sexism than I ever have on CoD or any other game. But would that make Starcraft 2 the game with one of the most sexist followings? No, I wouldn't say that because I understand that what someone sees is not always proportionate to what it is.

By that token that doesn't rule out that CoD may have the most sexist following, but I think for anyone to claim that X game is (one of) the worst is very naive.

 

[ElectroJosh]

Personally I don't dislike the games or the series; I just don't see them as "fresh" enough.

I played the crap out of CoD2 (its the first one I tried) in the day (single player and multi) but never cared for MoH or CoD1 or CoD3 - to me the felt too similar.

When CoD4 came out it was awesome - new weapons; great single-player. I completed the campaign 3 times and sunk hundreds of hours into multiplayer. It was a very good experience and one of the great games of the last decade. I was excited about MW2 but it didn't do the same for me and the subsequent ones have been the same.

The thing is though; it doesn't matter. There are types of games I like which are, essentially, face-lifts of prior games - just not CoD (or sports games for that matter).

I honestly think that a multiplayer-only CoD; with yearly DLC updates, a sort $10 to $20 map, weapon and texture pack (price determined on how many extras were added) - would be a smart idea. I wouldn't be so keen to play it myself but I am sure a lot of gamers would love this option - no need to buy the complete game each time (and no development costs sunk into a single-player campaign each year).

 

[hermes]

The main/only issue I have with CoD and its evolution as a franchise is that I don't like the multiplayer. I just don't... Maybe its the fact that people with less that stellar connections are always boned against people with better connections, which makes it feel like everybody is using bulletproof vests but me. Or the fact that the game rewards good players by giving them superpowers at the expense of penalizing bad players, which makes the learning curve impossibly steep, frustrating and simply boring. Or that the maps are smaller, more limited and more confined than other FPS games, emphasizing memorization, fast action and big kill counts over teamwork, planning and options.

I will always favor the campaign instead of competitive multiplayer. Call of Duty 1 and 2 are among my favorite FPS of their generation for the single player mode alone. However, so little effort has been put into the campaign compared to the multiplayer component that buying a CoD game at full price just doesn't seems justifiable. Not only has the campaign been reduced in length iteration over iteration, but also in quality. By the time it got to MW 2 and then 3, it looked designed by comity, by a Michael Bays clones comity; and I just didn't care anymore. This might be the first Call of Duty I plan to buy in a while, but I am not yet interested enough to pay 60 $ for the lesser third of a game.

 

[ImmortalDrifter]

Sorry, I lost interest in the impenatrable Wall 'O' redundant fanboy speak and drew a Half life lambda in it. Hey, I know a lost cause when I see one, I can't be bothered to respond productively anymore.

{EDIT} frickin' escapist doesn't record spaces...

Fantastic cop-out. Spewing the classic "Well youre a fanboy so your valid points are moot". But whatever, I know a lost cause when I see one.

Dude, You're unwilling to acknowledge any flaw in this property, or a least so far you've potrayed the series as a gift from the elder gods. You've chucked it on a pedestal so high you'd need an oxygen mask to be able to breathe near it, and you DON'T think that's at all fan-boyish? Your points aren't valid because they are heavily biased.If you'rea fan of something youve got to look at it critically or it never gets any better. If you can find one, good hard criticism of cod, I will drop the fanboy argument, but so far the entire purpose of this thread seems like a Huge "THEY JUST DON' UNDERSTAND!!!"

-facepalm- Seriously, what don't you get? This was never a debate over the mechanics or flaws of CoD, but the stigma that surrounds it and those who play it. I do see flaws in CoD, the Campaigns are short and insipid, the lag issues can completely ruin sessions, there's typically one gun that 99% of online players use exclusively, and many other issues. But that ISN'T THE POINT! The purpose of this thread is to simply state that I, nor anybody else who plays CoD is inherantly stupid, sexist, or ignorant. And also that those who don't play CoD are not inherantly better than those who do.

Have a pleasant day.

 

[SpectacularWebHead]

Sorry, I lost interest in the impenatrable Wall 'O' redundant fanboy speak and drew a Half life lambda in it. Hey, I know a lost cause when I see one, I can't be bothered to respond productively anymore.

{EDIT} frickin' escapist doesn't record spaces...

Fantastic cop-out. Spewing the classic "Well youre a fanboy so your valid points are moot". But whatever, I know a lost cause when I see one.

Dude, You're unwilling to acknowledge any flaw in this property, or a least so far you've potrayed the series as a gift from the elder gods. You've chucked it on a pedestal so high you'd need an oxygen mask to be able to breathe near it, and you DON'T think that's at all fan-boyish? Your points aren't valid because they are heavily biased.If you'rea fan of something youve got to look at it critically or it never gets any better. If you can find one, good hard criticism of cod, I will drop the fanboy argument, but so far the entire purpose of this thread seems like a Huge "THEY JUST DON' UNDERSTAND!!!"

-facepalm- Seriously, what don't you get? This was never a debate over the mechanics or flaws of CoD, but the stigma that surrounds it and those who play it. I do see flaws in CoD, the Campaigns are short and insipid, the lag issues can completely ruin sessions, there's typically one gun that 99% of online players use exclusively, and many other issues. But that ISN'T THE POINT! The purpose of this thread is to simply state that I, nor anybody else who plays CoD is inherantly stupid, sexist, or ignorant. And also that those who don't play CoD are not inherantly better than those who do.

Have a pleasant day.

Eh, for the record, I will take back the fanboy thing. Personally I can't see the point in defending a property like cod so adamantly for any reason, seeng as how the blanket reaction to the mention of cod is half "Yeah, cod's really good but gets a bad rep" and the other half is the opposite, but as you aren't being moronic in your defence of it, I take back the fanboy comment and apologise.

 

[Fisher321]

Spoiler: Spoilered because huge post

"It started the Modern Shooter market saturation"

This one always makes me laugh. While this game is not a military shooter, it did spawn the trend of campaigns that make extensive use of scripting. Can you guess which game it is?

"It's the same game every year"

This one is also funny. COD catches so much flack for not "evolving", while Total War is fine...? What major innovations has CA made to it's long running series between Medieval 2 and Shogun 2? Naval battles, better multiplayer, and that's about it.

COD, in my opinion, doesn't need to evolve, it needs to go back to what it used to be. COD 2 was great, and even MW2's multiplayer was decent in it's own way. They have a multiplayer formula that worked and with MW3 and BO2 they are actually trying hard to develop it further, but they are fucking up hard in the process.

OT: So, anyway, my thoughts on COD.

1) They should either cut the campaign or force the entire studio to play COD 1&2. The campaigns have ALL been terrible since that point, with the exception of WaW, which was merely competent. And yes, you heard that right, I didn't like COD 4's campaign at all. Wow, you got nuked. And what about all the other stuff? Oh, right, terrorists are here, you go there, shoot brown people, nuke, patriotic music, the end. People who praise COD 4's campaign while critizising MW3's in the same breath piss me off, if you claim to love one but despise the other you are just trying to look cool.

2) The biggest problems with COD's multiplayer is too much fucking shit. MW3 had like 50 different killstreaks that went into 3 different streak systems. Every gun had over 10 attachments. Those guns also came with a slot for a speciality of your choosing, ranging from more damage to increased range. That's not to mention your 2 equipment slots and 3 perk slots. Oh, and don't forget deathstreaks, theres also five or so of those in MW2 and MW3.

It is too much. Both Infinity Ward and Treyarch have proven they are not competent enough to balance all this stuff, while Sledgehammer have proven they shouldn't be let near any multiplayer modes in the future. It is the wrong kind of "innovation". Killstreaks aren't even killstreaks anymore, you can go 5-45 and still get a UAV.

And when they do have a great idea, they go ahead and exclude it from the next game. Stopping Power and Cold Blooded should still exist. Killstreaks should actually be powerful. Even One Man Army was an interesting idea that should have had a place in the COD games after MW2, obviously with some changes.

But no, they excluded all of those things while keeping Second Chance and deathstreaks in the game. Hell, they even added new killstreaks. What are they doing?

So how do you fix all of this?

a) Bring back the aforementioned Stopping Power
b) Stick to the number of perks and perk slots they have now
c) No more fucking specialist or support. You get to choose 3 killstreaks from a list of 10. No fucking stacking upon death or any of that bullshit.
d) Who designed the maps for MW2? You bring that guy back. If you can't get him because you fired him, get the guy from COD 2. If you can't get him, don't fucking make a multiplayer mode, because apparently every other developer Activision can hire doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
e) Cut the campaign and cut the price.
f) Piss off with this COD Elite bullshit and calm down on the DLC. You can't play any recent COD game without being flooded with notifications stressing you to buy the latest "3 really bad maps" DLC.
g) You get a gun and a secondary. Both of those guns get one attachment. Finite.
h) Make the PC versions decent again. If you can't, let a bunch of amateur modders handle it for you and don't fucking nuke their project. Leave AlterIW alone, let it live (or die) in peace.

Bravo sir, Bravo

 

[Sande45]

Jet Stealing - So the enemy gets an extra jet in the air. That's one less pair of boots that can capture objectives. Jet's aren't all that good at seeking out infantry. Never seen jet stealing in RUsh though. Even once.

Base Raping - If it's Rush, it's just a matter pushing forward as far as you can. The boundaries stop it from becoming a problem. If it's CQ there just aren't enough people for it to happen, and as I said, the AA rips down the Helis.

I was talking more about helicopter stealing than jet stealing. One team with both helis is all kinds of wrong. It's also ridiculously easy to steal a chopper in Conquest.

With baserape I meant pushing forward in conquest when you have all flags captured. The opposing team gets trapped in their own base being mowed down within seconds of spawning. They have effectively no way of even trying to get back in the game and start capping the flags. I don't get what you meant by not enough people. There most certainly are enough people in a team for it. Otherwise it wouldn't happen in about every other match. I guess one could argue that people deserve it for letting enemies overpower them but I don't think anyone deserves to get mercilessly and hopelessly shat on in a game where the goal is to have fun. It's basically kicking someone when they're down which shouldn't be possible.

But I guess that's enough about Battlefield in a thread about Call of Duty. To avoid being compeletely offtopic: Black Ops 2 is pretty awesome. Way better than MW3, BO, and Waw. And it crushed at least one of the arguments in OP; it sure as hell isn't the same game as other Cods. For previous Cods I kind of understood that argument being thrown around but with BO2 is just utter bullshit.

 

[Snatcher]

I really like World at War (call it a guilty pleasure of mine), it's my favourite CoD game ever. The other Treyarch CoD's (CoD3, BO, BO2) are pretty fun as well. More fun than the ones made by Infinity Ward at least. I'm not a fan of the franchise but I don't hate it either. I think that they're well made games that are pretty enjoyable.

However, the franchise hasn't changed much since the first Moden Warfare and I can't seem to find a reason to buy a new CoD every year, because it feels like they are releasing the same game over and over again.