Stop Trying To Challenge Call of Duty

[Merkavar]

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

See? People like you, who don't even think about demanding quality single-player modes piss me off no end. People like you are the reason why douche bag publishers tell their devs to not even bother trying because most people who buy those games are drooling retards who prefer "headshotting n00bs" to an engaging single-player campaign anyway.

Jesus titty fucking Christ. What's next, you stating that movies targeting you as their audience don't need dialogue, because you and your buddy wouldn't hear it over your belching and grunting noises?

Now, don't get me wrong, I like a good deathmatch as much as the next guy, but at least games like Gears or Uncharted still have a campaign that isn't just an alibi... At this point, why bother making single-player campaigns at all?

it would be good if these games had good single player games but these are primarily multiplayer games. just like how alot of singleplayer games have crappy mulitplayers. these multiplayers have crapy singleplayers.

personally i dont buy a singleplayer game for its multiplayer component and vice versa. thats like buying an action movie and expecting a fleshed out romance story.

 

[Merkavar]

Woah, hold up. Are you calling BC2 a bland imitation of MW2? The Battlefield series came out before Call of Duty. Battlefield has pioneered multiplayer matches.

Pioneered and constantly perfected. It's the only multiplayer series I find to be remotely bearable.

if bc2 wasnt a bland imatation of mw2 then it would have 64 or more players per server. battlefield 2 had 64 player servers. bc2 as part of the battlefield series has gone backwards and become more cod like. with less players per server and better graphics

 

[Iwata]

Woah, hold up. Are you calling BC2 a bland imitation of MW2? The Battlefield series came out before Call of Duty. Battlefield has pioneered multiplayer matches.

Pioneered and constantly perfected. It's the only multiplayer series I find to be remotely bearable.

if bc2 wasnt a bland imatation of mw2 then it would have 64 or more players per server. battlefield 2 had 64 player servers. bc2 as part of the battlefield series has gone backwards and become more cod like. with less players per server and better graphics

Battlefield 1942- 64 players
Battlefield Vietnam- 64 players
Battlefield 2- 64 players
Battlefield 2142- 64 players
Battlefield 1943- 24 players
Battlefield Bad Company 1- 24 players
Battlefield Bad Company 2- 64 players

So... wanna run that math again? How exactly did they give us less players per server?

Fanboyism sucks, kids. Get your shots today.

 

[Ken Sapp]

snip


While we're at it, can somebody PLEASE try and challenge Jane's AH-64D Longbow? 14 years, and still no flight sim comes close...

What about Falcon 4.0?

Well, sure. And there was Jane's USAF, too. But there hasn't been a truly great combat flight sim in the last decade, and that's a crying shame. With the power of today's PCs...

I think it is an unfortunate side effect of the separation between accessibility for casual players and the complexity demanded by a much smaller contingent of hardcore players. The hardcore players demand games such as Jane's and Falcon with as close to realistic physics, controls, maps, aircraft and weaponry as possible. It's an extremely small and expensive market compared to most other genres.

 

[7|-|3 1337]

I WILL continue to Challenge Modern Warfare 2.
I was told it would be the best game ever created. Ever.
The story, which is boasted, like, everywhere, is the worst thing about it. It's like Mental Ward told Steven King to base their story off of Red Dawn and his book #462.
It. Just. Sucks.

 

[Merkavar]

Woah, hold up. Are you calling BC2 a bland imitation of MW2? The Battlefield series came out before Call of Duty. Battlefield has pioneered multiplayer matches.

Pioneered and constantly perfected. It's the only multiplayer series I find to be remotely bearable.

if bc2 wasnt a bland imatation of mw2 then it would have 64 or more players per server. battlefield 2 had 64 player servers. bc2 as part of the battlefield series has gone backwards and become more cod like. with less players per server and better graphics

Battlefield 1942- 64 players
Battlefield Vietnam- 64 players
Battlefield 2142- 64 players
Battlefield 2- 64 players
Battlefield 1943- 24 players
Battlefield Bad Company 1- 24 players
Battlefield Bad Company 2- 64 players

So... wanna run that math again? How exactly did they give us less players per server?

Fanboyism sucks, kids. Get your shots today.

in the time i played bc2 multiplayer i never once saw a server that held 64 players. i just went on bc2 just then and turned off all the filters and there are no 64 player servers. is it that it can have 64 players but there are just no servers for it?

 

[Mechanix]

CoD didn't start receiving hate until MW2 anyway, which is why Treyarch is doing their best to make it not terrible with Black Ops.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yes, because Call of Duty is a flawless game that cannot be improved upon and came up with all of its concepts itself - of which all other games with similar styles are obviously copying from.

-_-

No. Just no.

Reason, I wither before thee. XD

 

[Iwata]

Woah, hold up. Are you calling BC2 a bland imitation of MW2? The Battlefield series came out before Call of Duty. Battlefield has pioneered multiplayer matches.

Pioneered and constantly perfected. It's the only multiplayer series I find to be remotely bearable.

if bc2 wasnt a bland imatation of mw2 then it would have 64 or more players per server. battlefield 2 had 64 player servers. bc2 as part of the battlefield series has gone backwards and become more cod like. with less players per server and better graphics

Battlefield 1942- 64 players
Battlefield Vietnam- 64 players
Battlefield 2142- 64 players
Battlefield 2- 64 players
Battlefield 1943- 24 players
Battlefield Bad Company 1- 24 players
Battlefield Bad Company 2- 64 players

So... wanna run that math again? How exactly did they give us less players per server?

Fanboyism sucks, kids. Get your shots today.

in the time i played bc2 multiplayer i never once saw a server that held 64 players. i just went on bc2 just then and turned off all the filters and there are no 64 player servers. is it that it can have 64 players but there are just no servers for it?

Depends what you're playing it on. Console versions don't have 64 player servers, it's a PC feature.

 

[x0ny]

Bad Company 2?
NO MORE CAMPING.

Haven't played it myself, but I heard 99% of players are snipers. I must be misinformed.

 

[Nomanslander]

I'd take Killzone 3 over any of those game, out of all the FPS-MPs I've played, KZ2 was the one I had the most fun even with the sluggish controls. So how cares about Call of Duty? Well at least I don't!...=/

 

[Merkavar]

Woah, hold up. Are you calling BC2 a bland imitation of MW2? The Battlefield series came out before Call of Duty. Battlefield has pioneered multiplayer matches.

Pioneered and constantly perfected. It's the only multiplayer series I find to be remotely bearable.

if bc2 wasnt a bland imatation of mw2 then it would have 64 or more players per server. battlefield 2 had 64 player servers. bc2 as part of the battlefield series has gone backwards and become more cod like. with less players per server and better graphics

Battlefield 1942- 64 players
Battlefield Vietnam- 64 players
Battlefield 2142- 64 players
Battlefield 2- 64 players
Battlefield 1943- 24 players
Battlefield Bad Company 1- 24 players
Battlefield Bad Company 2- 64 players

So... wanna run that math again? How exactly did they give us less players per server?

Fanboyism sucks, kids. Get your shots today.

in the time i played bc2 multiplayer i never once saw a server that held 64 players. i just went on bc2 just then and turned off all the filters and there are no 64 player servers. is it that it can have 64 players but there are just no servers for it?

Depends what you're playing it on. Console versions don't have 64 player servers, it's a PC feature.

im playing it on pc. no 64 player servers in sight. btw lets keep this quote tunnel going.

 

[HaloHappy]

Well CoD has a lot of glaring flaws in it, first off being certain weapons are overpowered such as the UMP and Model 1887s. Plus I hate running into assholes on there who spawn camp, trash talk, or are a five year old foul mouthed brat who needs an ass kicking. Plus, Halo Reach has me addicted where CoD didn't, so nah, Reach is better in my book.

 

[thedeathscythe]

It's a good game, I'll give you that. But how good it be without Medal of Honor, or Battlefield, or Halo giving it a run for it's money? Sure, it slaughters some of them, but if it was the only shooter available, besides the odd game, if it came out with a game every year and sometimes it was the only shooter released that year, what motivation do they have to innovate? What bar do they have to concur besides their own? Which, in and of itself, can be a rather unfulfilling motivator. Even their servers could be utter shit one day but would they need to update it? What game are people going to migrate to?

I'll tell you why everyone in the world will benefit from people challenging Call of Duty. Call of Duty will be better because of it, other games will be better because of it, and people that like either category (let's say, Call of Duty or Other) will have better games to enjoy. Call of Duty needs competition; every game does, and it's too naive to think otherwise.

 

[EinTheCorgi]

i still like battle field bad company more then COD though black ops looks really good though im sad that dice fucked up bad co 2 by letting people buy SA weapons that are more powerfull then there normal counterparts so im very iffy about getting BF Vietnam so the only reason im getting black ops is because it CAN'T be worse than MW2 its imposable because that game was BROKEN in my opinion.

 

[gigastar]

Say 'Stop Trying to (insert action here) (insert something here)' all you want. Just as long as its the best rated someones going to try and top it. I could say 'Stop trying to Save all Humans' but that isnt going to make every international aid worker and most of the medical profession grind to a halt now, is it?

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

well its more realistic than the halo franchise, the conduit

I like CoD, Ive just never been to good at it so I don't play it so much. still, every so often i have a poke around the spec-ops.

And I agree, as far as realistic shooters go, CoDs the best of the litter

are you trying to imply cod is realistic in any kind of way?

Well its more realistic than halo, the conduit, Lost planet, etc etc...

But your right, there is a lot of bull in that game, wounds dont heal that quick, the berreta 50. cal's kick is way understated and the entire sniping aspect is...well its subject to poetic license

 

[Aphex Demon]

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.)

This argument is rather reminiscent of the old 'iPhone Killer' argument, that pisses me off.

OT: I agree actually, COD is king of the hill atm, Bad Company is the only other enjoyable (Present day themed/real life) FPS IMO. I would say Halo: Reach is too but its in another category tbh.

 

[tzimize]

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.)

While I agree that CoD is clearly the best War-FPS out there atm (and has been for quite a while really) its downright stupid to tell people to not challenge it. Stop trying to imitate it might be better.

Remember, at some point CoD was new too. It challenged some other game, and beat it. Someday a game will be better than CoD (as a War-FPS, not as a game....), and we will all be glad that its developers chose to challenge CoD.

What I would advice against is trying to imitate it. When there is a market leader, as you said, it is that for a reason. If you're gonna compete, try to be better, dont try to leech off the success of others. Down that road lies failure in bucketloads.

 

[NoriYuki Sato]

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.

just wish these bland imitations would stop so new first person shooters could just be good on their own merit

no flaming intended, if it seems i do, i apologize, i am honestly just trying to clear a few things up i think everybody needs to know, and even if you know what i say here, then it's a good refresher

i do hope that all of you realize, Medal of Honor has always been in competition with Call of Duty, it is the ONLY series that has ever compeated with them, and not even that hard, they just said "oh, we'll release one game for every one or two you release, no big deal", Killzone and the Battlefield series has never compeated with them like most people think. ((mainly talking about Battlefield here))

now obviously, DICE and Danger Close will not be using the same engine for their games as Infinity Ward and Treyarch do. Danger Close was using DICE's engine for MoH because dice did the multi-player.

I can't speak for Killzone 2, but the story for MoH is not broken, unfocused, or badly told. This story is a simulation of events as protrayed by the United States Special Forces. this includes Black Ops teams such as Navy SEALS, they also worked with Army Rangers to simulate realistic events that have happened (names changed of course) it is not a made up story like CoD or Bad Company. as for the melee, this is because of the different engine, not every FPS needs a "perfect" knife stab with the noise and random blood spray. sometimes a bump on the back of their head with your blade does the trick just fine.

the reason in my opinion that these other games bore you, is you are not truly opening your mind to a different idea or willing to work with a different type of game engine. These are not bad games, simply different games. They are not bland imitations, they are their own games with their own story and their very own engine, with 100% seperate ideas, OTHER than being in "not-to-be-named-astan" and being an FPS. these games ARE good on their own merit if you are willing to see something beyond the mainstream.

((i'm on my way to being a game developer, so i look for things like this and find the beauty in each game as it's own, and also compare them to games that are similar.))