Stop Trying To Challenge Call of Duty

[SovietSecrets]

Bad Company 2?
Like COD?
Give me a fucking break, will you...
It removed everything that was annoying about COD to me.
No more being able to survive getting hit by a rocket launcher by standing behind a garbage bin.
No more overpowered weapons that ruin the game completely.
No more rounds that depend on one guy getting a tactical nuke and the rest just running across the map like idiots.
NO MORE CAMPING.

Are you sure you are talking about the right game?

 

[Dcill]

I say this, not because I'm an obsessed, overzealous kewboard warrior, but because there just really isnt any point in doing it anymore.

COD has just well, nailed it. At least, better than anyone else really has.

I rented out and played Medal of Honour recently, along with Killzone 2 and Bad Company to see how they stacked up, and by comparison they were just awful. Sure, maybe they wouldnt be so bad if I didnt have something better to compare them to, but for christ sake they bored me.

Aiming the weapons was a sluggish chore, point blank hails of bullets took a solid 6 seconds to bring down an enemy, the close combat animations were lame, the characters were highly punchable, the story was broken and unfocused and badly told, and the set pieces made me yawn.

As Yahtzee once said, popular things are often popular for a reason, because they are good.

So who agrees? Is anyone else sick and tired of hearing about "COD killers" and just wish these bland imitations would stop so new first person shooters could just be good on their own merit, or is it actually possible to knock COD off its perch with a new title? (That would be, off its perch in its prime, not when it starts releasing endless successions of clones after MW3.)

I feel you have a very good point with this post. Just look at Madden. EA owns the rights to all football games. So only Madden exists for that source of entertainment. Now saying that I don't feel I agree that people should stop challenging it. Otherwise under that mentality no one should have tried to One Up the original Doom or Halo Combat Evolved. Thinking about it that way consonle multiplayer wouldn't exist in the way it does. We would all still be playing LAN partys in our friend's basement. Challenge is a very good and healthy thing in any industry. It's what pushes people to be the best.

I think the game developers need to start taking note from companies like Lionhead and Epic. These companies are starting to listen to there fans gripes and do something to make their games better. Epic putting dedicated servers in Gears 3 and Lionhead actually letting fans give some input on certain things.

If they did this we may actually get some amazing production value. Since that is what I think is lacking in most games these days. Every company wants to have the greatest multiplayer game on the market and just tack on a 5 hour Campaign. The last all around great packages were COD4:MW and Halo Reach. These two games had it all. A great campaign that felt rewarding and also offered a nice multiplayer component as well.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

I disagree completely. Developers NEED to compete with MW2 because 1. MW2 sucks and 2. We want new innovations in the FPS genre. COD isn't going to give them to us. Those competing to unseat MW2 will.

 

[z3rostr1fe]

The thing that has made games like Halo and CoD and (to some extent) Assassin's Creed so massive imo is the amount of polish lathered onto them.

By polish you mean the massive amounts of Bloom added to it?

OT: If you don't like the other games which, in your perspective, are not up par with CoD, then just stop making a fuss about it. Game Devs will still create shooters which are like CoD because it's where(they feel) the money is. It's called competition for a reason. Although naming a game as a "CoD Killer" is quite optimistic, it's solely for Marketing/Hype-Building purposes. If it makes you uncomfortable that other developers are trying to imitate your very precious CoD, try ignoring them. Hopefully it works. Else, you're a fanboy.

 

[Mordwyl]

If CoD is the best multiplayer shooters have to offer then the industry needs help.

Sums it up.

 

[FollowUp]

You know, people will play the games they like. Complaining how people should give up on making a better quasi-realistic wartime shooter won't make them stop. If no one tries, no one will succeed, and eventually, someone will succeed.

EDIT: Innovation is important. If someone says, "Well, we can't beat that, never mind." MW2 is the best it'll ever get. I'm not satisfied with that.

 

[Wow they sure are generous with the usernames]

imho each genre of game should have one game. WoW for MMO's, Madden for sports, Civ 5 for RTS, CoD for everything else, etc. every year there should be a competition to determine which single game would be played over the year, and it would be a tournament style gladiatorial arena between the lead designers of different games. think thunderdome but nerdier.

Edit: actually just think thunderdome

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

First off, CoD4 and WaW were its prime. MW2 was forced on IW to make money. God forbid a successful studio want to make an original IP. Second, I'm not a communist, so I think competition is good. I don't want to be playing a new CoD year after year when the core gameplay hasn't changed much since CoD4. I think BC2 and MoH are both great, fun games. I can't wait for the free DLC and patches for MoH that will fix the game and make it more fun. And the BC2 DLC that will bring it to a new era and be awesome. If you think they should stop "challenging CoD" you are a fanboy and a retard.

P much this.


And if nobody challenges CoD, then it can dumb down even further and people will still buy it. The overall market suffers as a result.

Ah, yes, the EA Sports approach to making games, e.g. NASCAR games after 2005, Madden 2005-2009.

Nothing like having no competition to make whatever you want at the lowest cost. Games that are held together by coded duct tape.

 

[Merkavar]

ive played a few games recently and the only one that i think is on par with cod is moh, except for the snipers.

moh is like a fast pace americas army. moh i think would be better than cod if it wasnt for the spawn, walk 5 meters while in cover and still manage to get sniped thing.

and who buys cod or moh for the story. these are multiplayer games with a 5 hour single player tutorial. not single player games.

i think if cod made a whole series of maps and game modes based around spawning at a base instead of spawning all around the map, they would attract alot of the battlefield people. my brother and i played cod but my brother is a little cry baby who cant handle spawning in different spots or having enemies being able to spawn behind him or even in a different direction. so if cod made a mode that has the same spawn system as moh then moh would just not exist.

 

[Ampersand]

I liked COD4 1 but but i never got on board with COD4 2 or any of the other modern shooters. For the most part they're all trying to do the exact same thing and for the most part they're succeeding which has left us with alot of games that are very similar. Don't get me wrong their all good but i feel like when you've played one you've played them all.

P.s. In spite of all the titles out there the best realistic shooter i've played on the x-box is Battlefield 1943 on X-box live arcade, and i don't see that ever changing.

 

[DazBurger]

Bad Company 2?
Like COD?
Give me a fucking break, will you...
It removed everything that was annoying about COD to me.
No more being able to survive getting hit by a rocket launcher by standing behind a garbage bin.
No more overpowered weapons that ruin the game completely.
No more rounds that depend on one guy getting a tactical nuke and the rest just running across the map like idiots.
NO MORE CAMPING.

Oh, camping can be quite useful in BC2.
And you wont call the CG overpowered?

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

All realistic war-time shooters should die.

Well then im happy that CoD series never was realistic.

You've obviously never played the early games have you? In CoD 1 and UO expansion you had static health and had to use med kits and when you got shot in the right arm(or either arm it has been awhile) you dropped your gun. A rifle shot to the chest did not kill and various other things.

That's not CoD.

It was it could of easily been a mod but it was definitely CoD UO. I played it a lot at my friend's house before I got it so I don't know what mods he may of had on it.

All realistic war-time shooters should die.

Well then im happy that CoD series never was realistic.

You've obviously never played the early games have you? In CoD 1 and UO expansion you had static health and had to use med kits and when you got shot in the right arm(or either arm it has been awhile) you dropped your gun. A rifle shot to the chest did not kill and various other things.

Thank you for proving my point.

And yeah, I played every Cod.

How did I prove your point? It was realistic to an extent. I never said it was reality to a tee I said it was vaguely realistic. The CoD series was also supposed to be semi realistic to a point where you need a certain degree of suspension of disbelief or atleast that is how it started. I never said it was Arma or Flashpoint.

 

[Merkavar]

I liked COD4 1 but but i never got on board with COD4 2 or any of the other modern shooters. For the most part they're all trying to do the exact same thing and for the most part they're succeeding which has left us with alot of games that are very similar. Don't get me wrong their all good but i feel like when you've played one you've played them all.

P.s. In spite of all the titles out there the best realistic shooter i've played on the x-box is Battlefield 1943 on X-box live arcade, and i don't see that ever changing.

yes but the way i see it when a new game is release the old one dies. so you need to buy the newest ones to keep playing. this might be different in other places but if i want to play an older game like 2 years old i seem to have to play on a us server with a massive ping or wait for prime time and get on a half filled server with a decent ping.

 

[binvjoh]

The reason CoD: 4 was so successful is because it was very different from Halo. You're never going to make the new "king" if you strive to make a better version of what already exists.

Summary: Moar original games, pleawse?

 

[lewism247]

battlefield bad company 2 is better. in my own opinion of course.

Whether each one is better than the other is irrelevant. They are nothing alike in any way.

OT: CoD is the most popular game out there. Unfortunately, like with all popular things, douchebags hear about it. There is nothing wrong with the game (besides spawns and commando) but there is a huge problem with the community. Its full of idiots. Who for some reason, can't play the game the way its suppose to be played. Even when the cheap ways are not fun at all.

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.

Have you played the game? Its the reason that turned me off of it, and now its only fun to go back to when I rage quit CoD.

The controls are terrible and clunky. Its a sacrifice the game has to make for the 30 FPS so they can get the great explosions everywhere vibe.

Not so much the aiming, its the whole moving around experience. Half the time I try walking into a doorway I end up hitting the side and can't get in. Its a very immersion breaking experience when you have to constantly be concerned and trying to get a feel of the controls for the game. I am a level 25(?) and I still have problems with the movement in that game. That shouldn't be acceptable.

But right now I haven't played either game for a few weeks, and I am really getting the craving for some BC2. Say what you will about the game, but the pistol action in that game is sexy.

And Protip: If you are only using the burst fire Raffica, you are missin out.

Which game are you talking about?

If it's any of the ones the OP stated then read the first sentence of the part of my post you quoted.

Also, you're criticising the game because you can't walk in a straight line through a doorway?

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

I say this, not because I'm an obsessed, overzealous kewboard warrior, but because there just really isnt any point in doing it anymore.

COD has just well, nailed it. At least, better than anyone else really has.

I rented out and played Medal of Honour recently, along with Killzone 2 and Bad Company to see how they stacked up, and by comparison they were just awful. Sure, maybe they wouldnt be so bad if I didnt have something better to compare them to, but for christ sake they bored me.

Aiming the weapons was a sluggish chore, point blank hails of bullets took a solid 6 seconds to bring down an enemy, the close combat animations were lame, the characters were highly punchable, the story was broken and unfocused and badly told, and the set pieces made me yawn.

As Yahtzee once said, popular things are often popular for a reason, because they are good.

So who agrees? Is anyone else sick and tired of hearing about "COD killers" and just wish these bland imitations would stop so new first person shooters could just be good on their own merit, or is it actually possible to knock COD off its perch with a new title? (That would be, off its perch in its prime, not when it starts releasing endless successions of clones after MW3.)

Jesus how old are you? I only ask because you seem to think Call of Duty is the greatest shit ever and it is SOOO not. CoD had ONE exceptional multiplayer game and that was Modern Warfare. MW2 is one of the most overrated games on the market. If anything, the Battlefield IP is and has been the best for years.

Stop camping for killstreaks and try a team game like BC2.

When you get really down to it, yeah MW2 has game theory down to a science. It rewards the player for completing certain challenges, and the rewards are all great... hell they're so good they completely broke the game. See, in an FPS, the easiest challenge you can throw at a player is to sit around and kill people. This is the best way to level up and the best way to get points... period. But, this does NOT promote team based gameplay. Sure this would be fine in a purely free for all game, but it simply does not work in any team game. What ends up happening is that the people who are the least helpful to teammates end up with killstreaks and end up getting more and more kills to the point where its not fun for those who want to actually win.

Look at it this way, in BC2, if you know running in to rez your whole team will get you killed but will also probably have you capture a control point, you will always do it. The rewards system encourages this, in fact, by giving you points and challenges that eventually get you new guns. In MW2, if you run in to protect a flag carrier or a bomb defuser or even if you run in in team deathmatch as a decoy, you get little to absolutely no reward.

tl;dr
CoD multiplayer is team based.
MW2 ruined the team aspect.
CoD is broken until they fix this.

Edit: Oh yeah, and if you thought the story to MW2 was well written or not the most cliched piece of crap you've ever seen then we have nothing else to talk about here.

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

ok...i will stop challenging cod when it stops being an asshole.... there is a reason i don't hang with him.

 

[Talshere]

Bad Company is better than MW:2 just because the PC version still has player hosted servers and player generated content.

As for the game itself. I prefer CoD4. Wish CoD would come up with something original though. Ever since #4 its just been copy pastes of old games with new cons to make money.

 

[Ken Sapp]

I say this, not because I'm an obsessed, overzealous kewboard warrior, but because there just really isnt any point in doing it anymore.

COD has just well, nailed it. At least, better than anyone else really has.

I rented out and played Medal of Honour recently, along with Killzone 2 and Bad Company to see how they stacked up, and by comparison they were just awful. Sure, maybe they wouldnt be so bad if I didnt have something better to compare them to, but for christ sake they bored me.

Aiming the weapons was a sluggish chore, point blank hails of bullets took a solid 6 seconds to bring down an enemy, the close combat animations were lame, the characters were highly punchable, the story was broken and unfocused and badly told, and the set pieces made me yawn.

As Yahtzee once said, popular things are often popular for a reason, because they are good.

So who agrees? Is anyone else sick and tired of hearing about "COD killers" and just wish these bland imitations would stop so new first person shooters could just be good on their own merit, or is it actually possible to knock COD off its perch with a new title? (That would be, off its perch in its prime, not when it starts releasing endless successions of clones after MW3.)

A couple points:
1)Of course there is a point in doing it. They want your money.
2)CoD may have it nailed at the moment but without competition to defend itself from the title will quickly grow stale.
3)The comparisons of those other games to your favorite isn't favorable to you. Luckily you aren't the only customer out there. CoD is better in your opinion, but your opinion is not the only one
4)I won't touch stories as that is entirely too subjective an argument to get into, particularly for games I haven't played.
5)Yahtzee is right and I am sure that Yahtzee would also agree that what is good for some is not good for others. As I recall Yahtzee has pointed out on more than one occasion that the true measure of a game(outside of bugs) is not what any reviewer or critic thinks but rather what the customer purchasing it thinks. And popularity is rarely a valid measure of quality.

In conclusion I am not sick and tired of hearing about CoD killers(sounds like a Deadliest Catch offshoot). And there are likely just as many who would say that CoD has already started releasing and endless series of clones as there are who would defend it.