Poll: Should Call of Duty Stop?

Recommended Videos

e2density

New member
Dec 25, 2009
1,283
0
0
Yes, and it'll only benefit the players if they do.

To be honest I look at games from a competitive aspect, and that's something that CoD games can't seem to do, simply because they don't last long. They are a 1 shot 1 year pop, then there's a new game being released and the previous one dies.

There might actually be a decent competitive community if they kept Black Ops around for a while...but oh well, it's not like they care about the players.
 

Layzor

New member
Feb 18, 2009
731
0
0
I think Treyarch should go back to making movie tie ins and leave cod to infinityward (or what's left of it) and have it come out every 2 years.
 

hutchy27

New member
Jan 7, 2011
293
0
0
I know black ops will be the last ever call of duty game, I will ever buy. I was greatly disappointed with Modern Warfare 2 and I thought I give it one more chance but Black Ops failed to impress too much -___-
 

MattAn24

Pulse l'Cie
Jul 16, 2009
656
0
0
To those that are perfectly fine that CoD has been going for so long and may very well continue to do so... You'd better not be the same people who consistently ***** and whine that Final Fantasy has gone on too long.

Yes, they're different games, one's a War-based First Person Shooter, the other's a Japanese-made Role Playing Game. Doesn't matter. They're both franchises, with no real direct sequel (except, for example, FFX/FFX-2 & MW/MW2).

They're all completely different games, with totally new stories and systems, yet using some minor traits from previous games as they go along.

I personally don't like the CoD series much, if at all. But I certainly don't think it should end if it's popular and the designers actually do good things with it FOR the fans of the games. Cater to the fans. That's what DOES annoy me about JRPG designers. They're listening to the wrong crowd (those who blatantly DESPISE their games, demanding they be more like Mass Effect.. But guess what? You don't need another Mass Effect, because you have... Mass Effect!)

I'm sure ME fans would be perfectly fine with a Mass Effect 7.. Mass Effect 10.. But no. Final Fantasy is apparently a completely different matter.
 

OliverTwist72

New member
Nov 22, 2010
487
0
0
Activision will never give their big money maker a break. They try and get the most money out of something that they can, so no they will not take a break. I don't agree that the games have been getting worse with each installment. I will agree, however, that there isn't much difference between some of these games.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
PhunkyPhazon said:
Or you could just, you know, not play it. It sounds to me like a ton of people like these games, so why the hell should they stop being made?
The problem comes when other games decide they want to be "CoD killers", which they won't, and the studios need to learn they'd be much better off making something interesting instead of competing with something that they can't beat.
 

Entreri481

New member
Jan 14, 2009
201
0
0
I don't understand this lol. People are paying millions of dollars because they like the game(shock). why should activision slow down, why should they make smaller games? Let the free market decide, let the gamers decide. We decide with are money, gamers want more COD, so why stop?
 

omicron1

New member
Mar 26, 2008
1,729
0
0
Call of Duty has enough impetus to survive one or three more games. I predict that next game will be a slight falloff; the game after, a more significant one. If they don't quit after that, Call of Duty will achieve market oversaturation and die a fiscally-painful death.

Incidentally... what the HELL are advertisements doing in the captcha? That's taking it a few paces too far, guys.
 

zehydra

New member
Oct 25, 2009
5,033
0
0
the problem with the most modern online fps's is that they are individual oriented in a competitive gaming universe. IMO, the best way to handle an fps is to make it TEAM-ORIENTED, where individual stats don't matter, and that people play for the TEAM not themselves. This cuts back on a lot of the assholery that people talk about in online gaming.

Examples where I've seen team gaming work well: Savage 2 (great free game), Left 4 Dead, Battlefield Bad Company 2.

(btw Call of Duty is an individual oriented fps)
 

teh_Canape

New member
May 18, 2010
2,665
0
0
parasyteFMA said:
I don't think they should stop, but I think they definitely stop doing a game yearly. Too much overkill.
that was Kotick's plan when they hired Infinity Ward back then with the first CoD
 

baddude1337

Taffer
Jun 9, 2010
1,856
0
0
It needs a break. Right now they just keep pumping out basically the same game and somehow making it worse with each new installment. They just need to take a few years break, think of some ideas and just refresh the series.
 

Chibz

New member
Sep 12, 2008
2,158
0
0
CoD should've died years ago, while it wasn't complete shit. Unfortunately people will buy that shovelware shit.
 

Geekosaurus

New member
Aug 14, 2010
2,105
0
0
You don't like it so you think it should stop? Yeah, it doesn't work like that. I don't like Paris Hilton but I don't really have the right to say her heart should stop.
 

thestig1214

New member
Oct 14, 2009
35
0
0
Geo88 said:
thestig1214 said:
I know a lot of you "hardcore" gamers are immediately reacting to this thread with "WTF is this guy nuts?" But, hear me out. The Call of Duty franchise, as we all know, has been getting worse and worse with every new release, and not just online either. We all know the cheating and cheap "n00b tubes" is very prominent in the online but the story has been getting less emmersive and as soon as the newness wears off everyone can agree that most new CODs suck. Honestly I don't think Trearch or IW has put out a good COD since 2007 with COD4, and despite it being the biggest FPS franchise to date, I think they need to put this cow they've been milking dry for 10+ years to rest.

I personally would rather play a good single player game like Fallout that keeps me hooked for months than have to deal with some of the a$$holes online in COD and debatably Battlefield or HALO. Maybe the next COD should just be an outstanding career and no online, or selective online like the new Combat Training feature.
I honestly don't think the right question is being asked. You're suggesting that Activision, headed by possibly one of the greediest people I've ever heard of, should stop making a franchise that sells millions of copies each year before the cases even hit the shelves. That's just not realistic. I'd rather play a solid single player game, too, but that's not going to affect CoD because it's so centered around multiplayer.

This is the sort of thing that the market will have to correct. For example, I really liked both CoD4's campaign and multiplayer, so I bought MW2. I thought MW2's multiplayer was an improvement, but the story was less exciting. Because I value story more than multiplayer, I didn't really care about BlOps. When it came out, I was too immersed with Fable III and The Force Unleashed II to bother with it. (Expanding on that, I thought The Force Unleashed II was a huge disappointment, so I'll just rent the third game.)

I no longer play the CoD series, but it's obvious that a lot of people do. For each person who says it's a horrible franchise, as we speak, there are 10 players who disagree and another 10 players too busy ordering air strikes online to care.

In the end, unless the quality of the games slips dramatically, CoD isn't going to stop or slow down until it's dethroned by another series. Hell, with the momentum it has right now, the CEO might get away with wanting to charge a monthly subscription to play online.

I just won't be one of the people paying or playing.
I totally agree with you. But this isn't a "***** and moan" thread I wanted an Activision rep to see. I just wanted to put it out there to see if anyone else from the gaming community agreed with me, and apparently 200 people do.
 

Medicated

New member
Jan 14, 2011
1
0
0
I think the problem is that crappy players now outnumber decent ones, and because of this, gameplay has changed significantly. A tiered subscription would solve this problem. Hear me out...

A decade ago, I loved online poker. Then ESPN and Chris Moneymaker convinced every college-aged male on the planet that he could go all-in and make it to the World Series of Poker. The community went from a few thousand highly-skilled players to millions of terrible ones seeking river-card miracles every hand. It changed the game so significantly because the opponents had changed so significantly. I used to worry about underestimating an opponent, now if I'm in a low-stakes game facing a 2 on the river, I find myself wondering if my opponent might be so stupid that he'd still be in the hand with a pair of deuces. In order for me to enjoy playing poker again there was only one solution: I had to stop sitting at the kiddie tables. The stakes had to be just high enough that they wouldn't put a hole in my pocket, but that they'd keep out the jokers.

The point is this: online multi-player will never be what it was because the target audience, as a whole, has evolved pretty significantly. The only way you're getting any piece of that experience back is by creating a second-tier level with a price just high enough to give casual gamers the incentive to stay at the kiddie table.

Games are not created for a specialized niche-market, they're made so that they can be adopted by the masses... and to those masses, it's often just casual entertainment. I'm not angry, I know that greater profits are what drives advances in this industry, but it's clear that now most players aren't as skilled, and they just don't care. I have no interest in playing with those types of players, and if you're reading this, it's a safe bet that you probably don't either.

You don't have to be a COD veteran to grasp this concept. Even if you've only recently adopted multi-player first person shooters, you've probably experienced it on a smaller scale with the "Christmas Miracle" bubble: a few hundred thousand kids receive the game for Christmas, jump on Xbox live, and it's such an all out miraculous slaughter that even mediocre players can convince themselves that they've got some serious skills. Servers lag, matchmaking is a nightmare, rookies camp to survive, finally unlock some weapons, and after a month or so, the gameplay finally starts to even out a bit. January can be a pretty frustrating month for multi-player gamers, but it mirrors the experience that veteran COD players deal with year-round.

I'm probably in the minority here, but I firmly believe that a tiered-subscription, tiered game price, or one-time upgrade fee would solve a number of these problems. This small fee gets you, separate dedicated servers, better matchmaking, more maps, more weapons, more games, maybe even multiple identities for the same gamer tag. It's not there to bleed customers wallets, but it's just high enough to act as a barrier to entry for casual players -and it comes with a guarantee that the revenue stream is used specifically for maintaining and upgrading that specific game's matchmaking servers, maps, etc... It's win-win for both Activision's bean counters and the veteran gamers that this franchise was built upon.
 

LeonLethality

New member
Mar 10, 2009
5,810
0
0
I don't enjoy a game that many many other people enjoy, I think they should stop making these games that so many people like.

If you don't enjoy it leave it alone and let the people who enjoy it enjoy it, geeze.
 

Armored Prayer

New member
Mar 10, 2009
5,319
0
0
No! How else am I going to piss the haters off? (seriously I enjoy their bitching)

Nah, I actually think the game needs to take a break. Sadly I doubt they will stop, but as long as nothing truly bad happens to the franchise I wont complain.
 

Jekken6

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,285
0
0
I think it should stop with the yearly releases and in 2-3 years, have one come out with alot of new things for the series and new tech.