Stop Trying To Challenge Call of Duty
- Thread starter Gentleman_Reptile
- Start date
Recommended Videos
News flash: games are always going to be compared to other games that have come before it that were good.
Before CoD there was Halo, before that was Counter-Strike, Goldeneye, Doom, etc. It works that way with every genre. You can't make Dante's Inferno without being compared to God of War, you can't make Dead Space without being compared to Resident Evil, you can't make Power Gig without being compared to Rock Band.
There's a reason why these games have made a name for themselves - because at one point they made a better game than any other available in the genre. Is Call of Duty always going to be on top? Doubtful, but there's no way people should stop trying to top it.
Before CoD there was Halo, before that was Counter-Strike, Goldeneye, Doom, etc. It works that way with every genre. You can't make Dante's Inferno without being compared to God of War, you can't make Dead Space without being compared to Resident Evil, you can't make Power Gig without being compared to Rock Band.
There's a reason why these games have made a name for themselves - because at one point they made a better game than any other available in the genre. Is Call of Duty always going to be on top? Doubtful, but there's no way people should stop trying to top it.
With the exception of CoD 4, I hated pretty much everything CoD. If I wanted to play with rabbits (bunnyhoppers), rubber men (ADAD-whores), and dudes with no legs (campers), I'd be playing some other game (and be pretty darned wierd to boot).
If I'm gonna play a game with "real people" in a "real world" environment (as opposed to bizarro fantasy / sci-fi stuff), I sure as hell want it to be more realistic than CoD!
America's Army, ArmA II, Operation Flashpoint, even Battlefield... all good.
The ultimate in FPS-goodness has already been achieved in Planetside. Everything since has just been a step backwards.
Hopefully, PS2 will be released soon, and we can get some REAL action going!
If I'm gonna play a game with "real people" in a "real world" environment (as opposed to bizarro fantasy / sci-fi stuff), I sure as hell want it to be more realistic than CoD!
America's Army, ArmA II, Operation Flashpoint, even Battlefield... all good.
The ultimate in FPS-goodness has already been achieved in Planetside. Everything since has just been a step backwards.
Hopefully, PS2 will be released soon, and we can get some REAL action going!
CoD has singleplayer nailed down, It takes you down a tense action packed road of omg I cant believe I just did that and leaves you shaking for more. Problem is play the same campaign more than 2x and suddenly its lame. Every wow moment has been seen b4 and the whole experience become's predictable.
This is actually a good thing, I'm going to buy Black Ops purely based on my experience while playint the 2 modern warfare's. I know it will bore me and the multiplayer wont satisfy me but the campaign is an experience worth living even if it's short lived.
the MULTIPLAYER however, now thats a different story, it can be amusing at time's but overall it gets boring real fast. The maps are to small,the possibility's to limited and like hell I'm paying 15? for 3 maps (I don't think those 2 maps that have allready become boring count)
In this aspect BBC2 has surpassed MW (1&2) in every possible way. It has big maps that are dynamic and will change WHILE you play them. All it takes is one stray rocket to completely mess up cover. The players on the enemy team aren't ass predictable as in the MW's. If an enemy goes into a building there aren't 2-3 set course's of actions, instead of chosing between 2 entrance's and a window that the devs make it painstakingly obvious they won't you to shoot from you make your own whole's to fire thru and if you get cornerd you blow up the corner. The possibilities are endless and just as important perhaps is that TEAMWORK MATTERS !
EDIT: also there's no point in giving us a truckload of weapons if 80% is obsolete.
This is actually a good thing, I'm going to buy Black Ops purely based on my experience while playint the 2 modern warfare's. I know it will bore me and the multiplayer wont satisfy me but the campaign is an experience worth living even if it's short lived.
the MULTIPLAYER however, now thats a different story, it can be amusing at time's but overall it gets boring real fast. The maps are to small,the possibility's to limited and like hell I'm paying 15? for 3 maps (I don't think those 2 maps that have allready become boring count)
In this aspect BBC2 has surpassed MW (1&2) in every possible way. It has big maps that are dynamic and will change WHILE you play them. All it takes is one stray rocket to completely mess up cover. The players on the enemy team aren't ass predictable as in the MW's. If an enemy goes into a building there aren't 2-3 set course's of actions, instead of chosing between 2 entrance's and a window that the devs make it painstakingly obvious they won't you to shoot from you make your own whole's to fire thru and if you get cornerd you blow up the corner. The possibilities are endless and just as important perhaps is that TEAMWORK MATTERS !
EDIT: also there's no point in giving us a truckload of weapons if 80% is obsolete.
CoD is my favourite FPS, but to stop trying to challenge it would just be stupid. Every industry needs competition in order to flourish, especially a creative one like the gaming industry. Even if a game doesn't quite make it to the same level as CoD doesn't mean that it's without merit. Everybody likes different things and just because doesn't succeed in beating CoD in general, it can still be superiour in other ways that will help the industry evolve. CoD isn't perfect and still has A LOT to learn.
[HEADING=2][Flame war deteced][/HEADING]
Alright, I'll try and make this quick.
CoD is by no means perfect, and without competition, it won't be able to spot it's flaws and try to correct them. Plus there are plenty of other games that are better than CoD.
I'd name a few, but now it's 10:30 PM, I'm tired, and I have a major headache. Also, I want to leave before the flame starts.
*logs off*
Competition is always good.
Take Rock Band and Guitar Hero for instance. Rock band is far superior in my opinion, but they've taken a few good ideas from GH, like the countdown when exiting the pause menu. It also probably motivated the creation of the keyboard controller and the pro mode.
Same thing goes for CoD and other shooters. Halo had a brilliant theater mode. Black ops has one too. CoD is good at what it does, but I like to see challengers and evolution within the series itself.
Take Rock Band and Guitar Hero for instance. Rock band is far superior in my opinion, but they've taken a few good ideas from GH, like the countdown when exiting the pause menu. It also probably motivated the creation of the keyboard controller and the pro mode.
Same thing goes for CoD and other shooters. Halo had a brilliant theater mode. Black ops has one too. CoD is good at what it does, but I like to see challengers and evolution within the series itself.
That whole "they're popular because they're good" line might have been true at one point for the CoD series, but as of now, I would bet that the series is popular because it's been around for so long. It just gets people who liked one of the previous ones to keep on coming back because it's a good game. It's not a great game and it's not innovating but the CoD series has solid gameplay.
CoD is... Meh. It's not bad. It's just... unremarkable to me.
If I want to play a shooter, I'd play Team Fortress 2. Partially due to the unrealistic graphics and bright colours. You can also take 2 shots to the face. And, instead of playing a mindless drone with no face or personality, you play a distinct class with characterization and actual strengths and weaknesses; in CoD, you can have whatever the hell you please but, in TF2, each class has a specific use.
If I want to play a shooter, I'd play Team Fortress 2. Partially due to the unrealistic graphics and bright colours. You can also take 2 shots to the face. And, instead of playing a mindless drone with no face or personality, you play a distinct class with characterization and actual strengths and weaknesses; in CoD, you can have whatever the hell you please but, in TF2, each class has a specific use.
Taipan700 said:
[HEADING=1]OH MY GOD[/HEADING]
Maybe people are making "imitations" because they're are using CoD as a base to improve off of? They are just trying to improve. BC2 is not for CoD fans, because it's gameplay relies on different grounds *cough bullet drop, destructible environments *cough. If CoD has nailed it, someone else should do a better job. The realistic war shooter subgenre shouldn't die. If you let CoD take over the genre completly, the genre will stagnate and die. When you don't have competition, there is no need to improve. You don't improve, you rot, and it becomes boring. There needs to be challengers so that both parties improve and people who play games get BETTER GAMES. I may have my time lines confused,but didn't KZ2 come out after MW2? Hence, the gunplay would be better in one than the other?
Also, KZ2 and BC2 are both popular games. By your argument, they are popular for reasons.
Different strokes for different folks.
You have an opinion.
Congratulations.
Oh, and it's always possible to make a better game. I loved the original space invaders. But can't we say galaga was, at the very least, an improvement?
Cod is an amazing game. So are KZ2 and BC2. But it can still be improved on, or this industry is going to start rolling downhill. And neither the consumer nor the developers want that. You better hope, if you love playing games, that CoD isn't the pinnacle of what can be achieved.
Taipan700 said:
Seriously?
How is the aiming a chore, I've played most of the Call of duty series, Killzone 2 and both Bad company 1 and 2. There is little to no difference between them, especially with Bad company.
Secondly, you complain that it takes a few seconds to kill someone, although from my experience that is a flat out lie. In other words, what it actually takes. Plus, I personally dislike that a lot of weapons in the COD series are on hitters unless you hit your enemy in the legs, it causes a lot more campers and makes the game a lot more frustrating.
I also don't understand what you mean by lame close combat animations, care to expand?
The characters were highly punchable?
I really need to disagree with this, the most recent COD's had a total of 5 likeable characters, at least for everyone I've talked to about it. Soap, Price, Gaz, Ghost and Renzov. That's poor other the course of 3 games. By contrast, in Bad company 2 ALONE there were also 5 likeable characters, the squad and the hippy pilot.
You also say the stories were broken and poorly told, again, please elaborate.
Also, in World at war, there was pretty much no story. I will admit Call of duty 4's was very, very good. Modern warfare 2's was convulted and one of the most clichéd I've seen in a while.
On to set pieces. The COD series has now started to rely on these to carry their games, Modern warfare 2 was pretty much split into set pieces and things leading up to set pieces.
You say that Medal of honour, Killzone two and the two Bad company games are "COD killers". This is a brand you have put on the games, only Medal of honour tried outright to steal COD's throne.
Also say that they're all bland imitations. This is tremendous ignorance. Battlefield and the medal of honour series' have both been around longer than Call of duty, surely that makes COD the imitator?
Finally what you're saying is ludicrous. You are saying that game companies should stop making some of it's highest making IP's an stop not go into direct competition with Call of duty.
Competition drives innovation, keeps quality up, and prevents Bobby Kotick from making you pay sixty dollars for each level. It also produces gems like Bad Company 2, which I greatly prefer over anything Call of Duty has ever spawned.
Competition is good for everyone. (Except Bobby Kotick.)
Competition is good for everyone. (Except Bobby Kotick.)
Are we talking best generic realistic war-shooter? Because if that's the case, I won't argue or agree cuz I don't play them. If we're talking best shooter, then I would have to strongly disagree as the words "generic" and "realistic" disqualify it from being the best in that regard.
Yes. Do stop making these Pseudo-Realism Shooters. They are bling-shooters with the depth of a spoon.
No. Do not stop trying to innovate or otherwise create something fun and/or playable.
Modern Warfare 2 is mediocre. Why would you NOT want to improve upon it?
No. Do not stop trying to innovate or otherwise create something fun and/or playable.
Modern Warfare 2 is mediocre. Why would you NOT want to improve upon it?
Popular things are sometimes popular because they're popular though.Taipan700 said:
The Da Vinci Code, by any standard, isn't good.
Neither is Twiglet's Sparkly Vampires.
All 3 games are blandTaipan700 said:
, and a good portion of the gaming community despises people like you who continue to egg on companies like Activision to create FPS games , we think all your fps games are bland and that your console war is moronic Sincerely, Someone whose far too busy to give a shit about what game or console is winning
If no one challenges it it will never change or get better, it will just keep re-releasing the same every year till people stop buying it.
I don't care for it myself, but I can see why so many people think it's great.
I don't care for it myself, but I can see why so many people think it's great.