The Call of Duty issue

[Flac00]

Its popular? KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
People have been doing this constantly. It started with Pac-Man, then Mario, then Doom, then Unreal Tournament, then Starcraft, then Halo, and now Call of Duty (there were many more, I can tell you that). Hell, Battlefield is getting hate now just because it got popular. There is always this mentality of "appose the man" idea, which is not always right. Call of Duty is popular for a reason, it was great, and is still pretty good. Halo was popular for a reason, all of these games are. In fact, and easy argument could be made that Call of Duty is better than many online community fave's like Minecraft. Don't worry, once COD looses steam (which it will, they all have), a new idol will come for the masses to first love then vow to destroy.

 

[42]

Its people getting upset of something that they really don't need to let bother them. if you don't like CoD don't play it. I mean its not actually harming anyone.

 

[Frostbite3789]

Erm, Battlefield was originally just a war shooter Star Wars battlefront style, just battles and next to no story, when CoD got popular they made Bad Company which was the first game in the series to have a story with actual characters, so it's actually the other way around. Even then people tend to forget the original war shooter was Medal Of Honor, of course that game ripped off real life so the entire war shooter thing is unoriginal to begin with.

And about as many people buy CoD for the story as people who buy Playboy for the articles.

Sure, you bought it the for story, little buddy, which is why you never beat it and are 8th prestige! *tousles hair* (This is directed at nobody in particular, just as a disclaimer).

But I think he means as far as eras go.

Battlefield 1942: September, 2002.
Call of Duty: October, 2003.

Battlefield Vietnam: March, 2004.
Black Ops: November, 2010.

Battlefield 2: June, 2005.
Call of Duty 4: November, 2007.

Battlefield 2142: October, 2006.
Call of Duty doesn't have a future shooter yet, but give it time.

Like I get there are only so many eras in which to wage war, but if they could've gotten to any of them first, it would be cool.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

The problem is with a future shooter, it would require the creators to be creative...disregard that. Even Sci-fi has gone to the realism dogs. No more badass laser guns and whacky explosive launchers with whacky secondary fire or shooting a chemical gun that spews balls of green goop. It is all bang bang assault rifles.

 

[Gmans uncle]

I think Buzz said it best...

Most of the hate REALLY DOES just come from the fact that it's popular, I'm not a huge fan myself, but that's mostly because I just don't "get" the military FPS thing, I don't deny that it's a fun little series with lots of good qualities and I understand why people like it.

Now there are people, myself included, who dislike how Activision milks the franchise so blatantly, it's annual release schedule is just dumb, and it does function for SOME people (SOME, NOT ALL) as military fetishist gun porn, but you could say the same thing about a lot of games and franchises, so I wouldn't hold it against it.

But you know what, at least MW3 didn't have an online pass, so I'd recommend it above Battlefield 3 INFINITELY.

 

[scorptatious]

I've only played a little bit of COD when I was over at my nephews's house. And from what I've played it was pretty fun. Not something I'd personally buy, but still, I can see why people may like it.

To me it seems like most of the hate COD and games like it get are because it's popular. And there seems to be this idea that those kinds of games are ruining the game industry because there is so many of them. By that logic, the game industry would have been ruined way back in the nineties when platformers with colorful mascots like Mario, Sonic, Banjo-Kazooie, Spyro, and the like were the dominant genre.

Another reason would be because people just don't like it. Simple as that.

 

[Treblaine]

Hello to all.

I understand this issue may have appeared before, but I am indeed curious.

I have been a gamer since the 80's. I started with the ZX Spectrum, then the NES, Genesis, PC and so on and so forth.

Gaming has always been my main hobby. I have hundreds of games for several different platforms. I play everything (except JRPG's and sports games) and enjoy it. From Okami to Turning Point, from Uncharted to Command & Conquer.

So can someone explain to me why the minute I say I like Call of Duty, a vast portion of the community acts as if I'm somehow a pariah? How I should turn in my gaming club membership card?

Yes, I do like those games, and they are good games! They're fun, they're exciting, and as shooters, they get the job done. I don't play the multiplayer, but I do enjoy the campaigns, and yes, I do buy them when they come out. And enjoy them.

So I am asking, out of genuine curiosity, why this immensely negative outlook on Call of Duty and the people who play those games.

Well for one you could give specific examples of how they actually object? I think treating you like "A pariah" is somewhat of a hyperbole, there isn't much definition to base a discussion on.

Call of Duty is good, but it has also screwed over many things:
-atrocious single player after the excellence of COD4's single-player
-extremely shoddy treatment of their employees
-the unreasonably high sales dominate the yearly sales too much with forced march upgrade
-charging so much for the map packs, doubles the cost of the game and fractures the community
-very unbalanced gameplay changes, like
-Marginalisation of PC gamers with various cack-handed efforts
-Activision's general bad business practice like liquidating successful studios

But overall, games like Black Ops multiplayer is still one of the best multiplayer FPS games on console. But Modern Warfare 3 was just so ROUTINE! There were a hundred little improvements but more than ANY of the previous games this felt EXACTLY like an expansion pack. So many assets like character models and weapons models and objects were completely recycled. And of course there is still the critical lack of any sort of teamwork in these games, it seems team deathmatch is popular mainly for how its easier to get high killstreaks than in free-for-all the spawns will get you killed.

There are so many other games out there that offer so much more yet are comparatively ignored:
-Left 4 Dead = great teamwork game, such an essential element of multiplayer
-Unreal Tournament 2004, Quake Live for the fast paced deathmatch
-Team Fortress 2 for heavily class-based team-multiplayer with a focus on environmental objectives over K/D ratio
-Battlefield 3 for the more sim oriented modern war-gamer.

So I hope you can understand why there is a certain amount of backlash against CoD games, even though the games by themselves are quite good. They just don't quite compensate for it's insanely high sales (25 million for MW3>!??! WTFBBQ?!?) and undue attention. Like how every gun vid on youtube is polluted with CoD gamers ignorant of actual gun use.

 

[Dys]

Because some people just don't like it and don't understand how other people could.

I understand that. But I think it goes beyond that. Some people are driven to systematicaly point out that they hate the games and the people who play them, whenever the topic or opportunity arises. It goes beyond simple dislike, I believe, it's an outright phenomenon.

It's not necessarily the game itself that people hate, it's the transition from single platform to multiplatform and trend of designing games to be more "inclusive" that people hate. FPS games used to be purely the domain of the PC until halo. Yes, there was goldeneye first, but that was hardly the same standard as the same era PC based FPS games. People widely hated Halo as well, call of duty is simply the next step, in that not only is it not PC exclusive, it's not even console exclusive. It is released every year and reminds people of "those stupid sports games all the sheep we mock play". There's plenty to not like about the games, especially if you start playing them looking for reasons to hate.

Because people think that it's causing a lack of innovation in gaming, a guess those people conveniently forget about Skyrim, Arkham City, Human Revolution, Space Marine and Mass Effect 3. I guess the majority of gamers are insecure.

Your list of innovative games is 4 sequels (all of which are very similar to previous games in the series) and a gears of war style third person shooter?

If I was going to argue about innovation (and it's not especially hard to argue that it's alive and kicking in the games industry) I'd probably try a little bit harder wth my examples.

 

[Treblaine]

it does function for SOME people (SOME, NOT ALL) as military fetishist gun porn, but you could say the same thing about a lot of games and franchises, so I wouldn't hold it against it.

Actually, you could NOT say that for CoD as actual "gun fetishists" despise CoD for it's INACCURATE depiction of guns. They are livid at the mere mention of CoD in a youtube video demonstrating a REAL gun!

Examples of bullshit that makes gun-nuts livid:
-dual wielding any weapon without both terrible accuracy and rate of fire, especially dual G18 machine pistols
-reload for dual wield is not slower but often QUICKER!
-suppressors reducing range
-shotguns pitiful range and power (yes, even the Akimbo Rangers)
-Ability to sprint with a .50BMG Barret rifle carried free-hand in the arms.
-Improper naming of guns in general

 

[SlaveNumber23]

Despite the obvious laziness shown in MW3, all the COD games have been great and I really can't see why people outright hating the latest additions. I can understand if they are merely not your thing, but for example a common argument I observed for why MW3 is a bad game is that it is almost exactly the same as MW2. I can't argue that MW3 is very different from MW2 but does it need to be? Yes, the game is a copy and paste from the previous title, but this is not a bad thing, MW2 was a great and enjoyable game, nothing needs to be changed for the sequel, the formula works well, they should not change it and instead polish the minor issues, which is exactly what they have done. I fail to see why people insist sequels to be hugely innovative.

 

[theswordsmn]

I'm gonna give this a shot and just say how I look at it. I am a major gamer, I dedicate waaaay too much time to gaming and have been playing since pretty much day one. But I see the whole issue as thus: gamers always had their gaming pass-time to give them their own niche in the world and other people had theirs. (Jocks, preps, etc., etc.) And people were okay being separated. But then in later years, the Call of Duty games would attract a more broad audience. This caused the everyone to almost intrude into the gamers' worlds. And this annoyed regular gamers to some extent it didn't cause any problems. BUT then the people who played only the COD games started saying that they were hardcore gamers and pretty much tried to force themselves into another world and expect to be treated like everyone else while still getting to hold their ranks in whatever else they did in life. Aaaaaaand that's how I see.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I mainly done that to people who said it was better then Halo... Basically just trash talking when playing MW2. MW2 was one of my favorite games but I just don't like how people will buy it on launch day without the slightest clue if it will turn out good or not.

 

[omega 616]

People hate the people who play COD for this reason
They hate the game 'cos it's unbalanced, the spawns suck (there are cases of enemies spawning beside each other and kill cams with kill cams in), perks like last stand make people rage (and were even said to be removed from the game), the game rewards good players thus crippling bad ones.

For example if you go on a pretty long kill streak you can get gunships to launch explosives at the other team, these things can be hard as hell to shoot down! You have to stand outside, aim up, find the aircraft, lock on then fire, all the while praying it doesn't kill you or a enemy on the ground doesn't kill you.

To add insult to injury you start off with no perks to hide you from air support and you get a rocket launcher with 1 shot in, it takes 3 to take down an AC-130, so you have to die twice to kill it 'cos your team never shoots them down.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

It's what Call of Duty represents that makes me hate it. Like my post said. It gives the impression that anyone can make a 6 hour FPS. Put in multiplayer and call it a day. The games break records every time they get a new release despite them all playing exactly the same. Adding some new guns and maps doesn't make it new or innovative. It's the same with sports games, they'd be better off just releasing them as DLC instead of making people pay for a 60$ game. I could possibly forgive them if they at least had some good stories in there, but they lack that as well. I'm tired of playing as amazing buff Americans going in and saving the world from the evil Russians/Germans/Koreans or whatever country is evil in the game. Give us something interesting for a change.

I'm surprised people haven't gotten tired of the games yet. I wonder when they will, maybe in 20 years when Call of Duty 200 is released.

"Gives the impression"? What are we, toddlers who can't think for ourselves? Games that have blindly tried to follow CoD have failed. The Medal of Honor remake, Homefront--both mediocre. And you never answered my question, how is what the CoD sequels do different from what other game's sequels do?

Seems like most of your reasons for hating CoD are superficial. It wouldn't bother me so much if the people who hated CoD just didn't like it because they don't care for it its gameplay. But no, it's always some ridiculous, melodramatic reason, that seems to be ripped straight out of Dawson's Creek, like "Oh, it's killing the industry." It's the video game world's equivalent of "I WISH I'D NEVER BEEN BORN! I'M GONNA KILL MYSELF!" It IS a popularity thing. You said it yourself: "The games break records every time they get a new release." It is popular, and you hate it for that.

I couldn't care less whether or not you enjoy CoD. I don't care if you hate gameplay, or the story, or think it's overpriced, or poorly made, or all of the above. What bothers me is that people like you act as though it's some sort of hyper intelligent, flesh eating virus that's out to destroy the world as we know it. Instead of just saying "I don't like the game, and that's MY problem," you're saying that the game is the problem, and thus, that the people who enjoy it are part of the problem; like we're sympathizers for the hyper intelligent, flesh eating virus. Not cool.

 

[David Bjur]

I got to ask, what is fast-paced then?

I think it is clear from my post that I am a big fan of oldschool style FPS where the only thing that saves you from your death is the ability to manage dodging dozens of enemies from all sides while you manage to find ammunition for your minigun.

I tested MW3 multiplayer through the free weekend, the few minutes I managed to play (narrow FOV is quite a ***** with my head, can't manage more than 30 minutes a day or I have to pop some pills against headaches) I thought of the following games as beeing faster in any way:

Serious Sam 3, Quake, Unreal Tournament. The first one came to my mind because I spent severa hours in the last weeks to finish it on serious.

Multiplayerwise Quake and UT are faster but we don't even need to go there. TF2 on servers with faster respawn. CS 1.6 on gungame servers. Overall you can point at nearly any old FPS and you see how faster running speed and more diversity in weapon effects add to a faster gameplay.

OK, thanks for the answer! Haven't played most of the old school FPS's because I'm more focused on single player than multiplayer.

 

[Kathinka]

the main issue i have with the newer CODs is this:
cod4 was pretty brilliant, fun to play and had dense atmosphere and a compellingly told story.
but the whole series mutated from a great shooter to the usual masturbatory america-saves-the-day-fuck-yeah USA supremacy fetishism fantasy, instead of building on it's very strong grey-and-grey-no-true-heroes-in-war atmosphere, maybe the biggest strenght of cod4.

that and the devs have been absolute dicks (no dedicated servers, no lean, pushing the price ceiling from 50 to 60 euros, general consolization, no mods nor custom maps, and so on).

so yeah, that's why i personally dislike the series. it's still solid and fun shooters in their own right, but it hurts to see the downwards spiral it is on whenever i go back and play cod4 and wonder where it all went wrong..