Poll: Is The Call of Duty name stopping people trying other games?

[Cupid Stunt]

I saw the trailer for Black Ops 2 today and i got to give it some props for having the balls to go in to ground Cod hasn't stepped in before. However Ghost Recon Future Soldier which is coming out very soon, and has been in development for several years. My point is that that putting those three fucking words in front of any gaming title is casting a massive shadow over all other titles that i believe have more original content and development companies with better buisness models. Now that there are 2 "Future Warfare" FPS games coming out this year (GR being the first), people will hold back and just wait for black ops because it's call of duty, and you know that it's going to be a safe choice because the gameplay will be almost the same as the other 5 games. It's sad because it's going to limit the Online community numbers and it's sad that this will all happen because of those 3 words in front of your title. Those 3 words have the power to make up some peoples minds on which game to buy.

Bottom line Call of Duty is become such a behemoth in the gaming industry that they're too big and created a corrupt buisness model that should not be seen as the norm for gaming developers. They have too much control of the console market(maybe PC a little),limiting growth in the gaming community as a whole.

Personally I believe some "World Gaming Bureau" (<- should exist) should stop massive companies producing the same Call of Duty: Give me Money 3 every single year! It would help regulate the gaming world atleast.

Thoughts?

 

[kTrmnatr]

Ummm...as much as I agree that there isn't all that much diversity among the last bunch of COD games, I don't think I like the system that you're proposing. If I understand what you're saying, successful franchises should be shutdown because they are stifling less successful games/franchises. Ghost Recon is definitely not on its first game. How do we know that it isn't stifling other games that might cause more 'growth in the gaming community as a whole?' There's a big problem with subjectivity in your system, assuming that 'growth in the gaming community' is a value greater than that of people getting to spend money on products of their choosing. People should definitely branch out and see what's available besides Call of Duty; there are so many of other fun titles to play, but do I believe that I should tell them what and what not to play, or that I should give my consent to an authority that tells them what and what not to play? I don't think so.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

The people who are going to do that would never buy Ghost Recon anyway. People who are not 'casual' gamers will probably take a look and buy the one that they think is better. The people you're talking about probably wouldn't own a console if it wasn't for CoD and FIFA/Madden.

 

[tippy2k2]

I suppose it "technically" does because there are going to be those gamers who buy only one multi-player shooter and generally will stick with the one that they really like.

However, for the average gamer, that's not going to matter. Ghost Recon, Rainbow Six, Halo, Call of Duty, Battlefield, and so on all have there own quirks and differences that make each worth a potential look. Only someone with a very limited outlook or a very limited income would even consider one FPS if they are fans of the genre.

Call of Duty is (and probably will continue to be) my multi-player shooter of choice. However, I have also purchased each of the games that I listed above (as well as other shooters). If someone is a FPS fan, I see no reason why they would limit themselves to one.

As to your "World Gaming Bureau" to stop these things. I'm not sure the nice way to say this so I'll say it the not-nice way: That's a terrible idea. There is absolutely no reason that a game company should have to stop creating a game series because there are people who think it's too successful. I'm sorry if your favorite series isn't selling but that's no reason to punish the selling series. When the market is sick of Call of Duty, that's when it should fall and no outside body should interfere with that.

 

[HarryScull]

if game company's were smart they would release their games in the summer to avoid having to compete with call of duty, because the call of duty games are so good and so popular your game is going to be crushed by it (and for good reason call of duty games are very good especially the treyarch ones)

 

[Terminate421]

Yes, I think so.

Take a look at the first person shooters released in the last 3 years. Now take away Battlefield and COD games. How many of them still have active communities and how many of them sold well?

The only one I can think of is Halo: Reach, Gears 3 counts too.

Pretty much his point right there, its all in the brand name. People are unfortunatly afraid to try anything else other than Call of Duty. I especially hate the conversation:

"Yo, I'm a gamer!"
"Oh really, what do you play?"
"FIFA and CoD, you?"
"Thats it?"
"Yeah."
".......Nothing else of interest?"
"What?"

Its quite sad that the fun franchises are the ones that lost mainstream popularity but yet are still popular.

 

[somonels]

Because "Call of Duty 11" would make it sound like it's old and dated...

 

[cryogeist]

*looks at 80+ others game owned that aren't BF or CoD*
or me? god no
for others? yeah probably...not for everyone though

 

[Dangit2019]

Yes, I think so.

Take a look at the first person shooters released in the last 3 years. Now take away Battlefield and COD games. How many of them still have active communities and how many of them sold well?

That's only because Valve hasn't released anything.

 

[FilipJPhry]

I'd say yes and no. While the multi-player market is dominated by shooters such as CoD, Battlefield and TF2, other games are doing quite well in the single-player/MMO market. If anything, it's sequels that are preventing people from playing other games. Hell, I'll admit that I don't think I've bought a single original title since Dragon Age. And before that, it was Bioshock. I thought Deus Ex: HR was an original title until I looked up online that the first Deus Ex was made over 10 years ago.

 

[Bobic]

Has anyone here read Atlus Shrugged? Because the OP could well be one of the antagonists in disguise.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It's not just the name, it's the way the game plays. Call of Duty players have a certain style of play that they use, and this style of play is really only supported by Call of Duty.

To use your example comparison between call of Duty and Ghost Recon Future Soldier, when I was playing the Ghost Recon beta it was easy to see the Call of Duty players from a mile away. They were the people who were running around the maps like chickens with their heads cut off, and they were the ones who were constantly getting shot, meaning the game probably wasn't very fun for them.

Ghost Recon Future Soldier is a tactical FPS game, and the majority of people who play Call of Duty would probably not enjoy the style of play that a truly tactical shooter requires, meaning they wouldn't have bought it anyway regardless of whether or not there was a new Call of Duty around the corner.

captcha: pipe down

 

[Flailing Escapist]

Has anyone here read Atlus Shrugged? Because the OP could well be one of the antagonists in disguise.

No, but I played Bioshock so I assumed that book was about a rebellion against underwater, tyrannical overlords and then not caring about it.

 

[Bobic]

Has anyone here read Atlus Shrugged? Because the OP could well be one of the antagonists in disguise.

No, but I played Bioshock so I assumed that book was about a rebellion against underwater, tyrannical overlords and then not caring about it.

No, it was more about halting the work of the successful for the sake of the unsuccessful. It wasn't painted in a pleasant light.

Basically, if Ayn Rand were alive today, on a gaming forum, reading about COD, she would have prepared a massive wall of text calling the OP a complete ninny by now.

 

[Starik20X6]

Yeah maybe, because games are expensive and people will naturally gravitate towards safer bets. To use a non-shooter example, if I take my hard earned $100 into a games shop, and have a choice between Random Platformer by Unknown Company or the newest Mario, I'm going to go with Mario. That much money is too much for me to want to take risks with. It's a sad truth, but a truth none the less.

The way I see it the 'sequalisation' (no Autocorrect, not sexualisation) of games has a lot to do with the high price point.

 

[Lugbzurg]

The "Call of Duty" title works worse on some people than it does to others. I've tried to bring up other first-person shooters to Call of Duty players, like Half-Life, Serious Sam, Ghost Recon, etc. And they just look at me completely dumbfounded like there's actually other shooters set in a firs-person camera view, besides Call of Duty, Halo, and Battlefield.

However, I do not think that this "World Gaming Bureau" should never exist in the way you've described it. That is just pointlessly choking out something just because it's raking in a lot of cash. Frankly, it's not even legal. And I'm already sick of how hard-working people will get taxed at a much higher percentage just for having more money in the US (which is why a lot of US companies and rich people are moving to Canada). So, I definitely do not like this.

 

[way2sl0w]

I saw the trailer for Black Ops 2 today and i got to give it some props for having the balls to go in to ground Cod hasn't stepped in before. However Ghost Recon Future Soldier which is coming out very soon, and has been in development for several years. My point is that that putting those three fucking words in front of any gaming title is casting a massive shadow over all other titles that i believe have more original content and development companies with better buisness models. Now that there are 2 "Future Warfare" FPS games coming out this year (GR being the first), people will hold back and just wait for black ops because it's call of duty, and you know that it's going to be a safe choice because the gameplay will be almost the same as the other 5 games. It's sad because it's going to limit the Online community numbers and it's sad that this will all happen because of those 3 words in front of your title. Those 3 words have the power to make up some peoples minds on which game to buy.

Bottom line Call of Duty is become such a behemoth in the gaming industry that they're too big and created a corrupt buisness model that should not be seen as the norm for gaming developers. They have too much control of the console market(maybe PC a little),limiting growth in the gaming community as a whole.

Personally I believe some "World Gaming Bureau" (<- should exist) should stop massive companies producing the same Call of Duty: Give me Money 3 every single year! It would help regulate the gaming world atleast.

Thoughts?

If you can show me a BETTER current gen arcady-realistic shooter (not named BF3) than COD, I'll promise to not buy Black Ops 2.