This "cod hate" is getting out of hand.

[MacJack]

So is nearly every other game. Even in the most varied games, you still end up repeating certain actions. Personally, I'd rather have a longer play time than just 4 hours before being dumped for an expanded multiplayer map.

Yeah, MW2...and how many other CoD games have really furthered the 'plot' since then?

I guess I expect more from a $60 game.

Personally? ubisoft is being waayyy too repettive, you cant deny that, assasin creed 1 was practicly 2 hours long and the rest was the same missions all over with pointless dialogues. Id rather a small game that i will replay rather the game replaying itself at he excuse of being longer. As i said its same as with uncharted 3 and killzone 3, diffirence is, one of those games had a great story for sp and the other one was bad.

OP couldn't have more selective vision if he tried. Everyone complained at Angel of Darkness? Uninformed or selective, nonsense. People were complaining as early as Tomb Raider 2, that the gameplay felt the same with nothing but slight changes like the ability to ledge-climb around corners, as a change.

And yes, half the hate is the fans. I mean ffs, I checked out the IGN youtube vid for Shadow of the Colossus HD, and no less than two comments out of the few were to the effect of, "This looks like garbage, you should play COD". I don't even have to break down the knuckle-dragging, I-only-play-COD-and-call-myself-a-gamer retardation in that. I wish that were the only time I could say I've seen that happen,but I could cite more.

So if the fanboys... sorry, the fans of COD are tired of the hate, maybe they should work on the image they project.

"OP couldn't have more selective vision if he tried."

You SURE its the fans that complained since "tomb raider 2" because for a game that made it through 5 rehashed games it seems unlikely, Perhaps you were selective about which people you remember (like i said the squaky wheel gets the grease) because from what i remember fans enjoyed them and till this day i see ton of people saying that the first 5 were the best and they would rather go back and play them again than play any of the new tomb raider games.
HEY take it down a notch with

"

The main thing that I dislike about the recent Call of Duty games are the short campaigns and the stories they have. When I have to pay $60.00 for a game I would at least like the single player campaign to be around 40-60 hours long if not longer. I know that is difficult to do with an FPS but I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that the campaign be at least 15-20 hours long.

In my opinion some of the recent Call of Duty games have had terrible stories. In Modern Warfare 2 it seemed like they dropped an entire sub-plot when you discovered the dead guy with the tattoos found in the house with the dead VIP. It is never mentioned again. I think one or two of Makarov's men die in the airport mission but no attention is ever paid to them.

I know the Call of Duty series is mainly known for its multiplayer but if the developers and publishers say that the story will be good than I expect it to be written well.

In which you are correct but sadly this is how things are nowdays, atlest cod campaigns are better than their competitors eg bc2, moh,homefrot.

So it begs the question are games that bad nowdays? Or is cod making other companies to lower their standards in SP campaigns?

 

[SleepyChan]

I dislike the CoD franchise because I've never been overtly fond of over-glorifying war. That may seems naive or hypocritical of a gamer, but there you have it. It may also be that I just can't stand the fan-base. A bunch of opinionated gun-nuts who think that because they've earned a bazillion achievements and can name more than one style of gun, they're God's gift to man.

 

[JochemDude]

You named all these other games, you don't see me buying those. For actually the same reason, they are just made to raise their giant dicks of profit.
Same shit, different day. If something seems interesting, refreshing or creative I'll buy it. Otherwise I'm not buying into the sequel whoring.

 

[Jimbo1212]

But MW is terrible and the sequels are a rehash of a broken game which is why it gets so much criticism. It has also done noting new to the genre. The only reason it is 'the game everyone is playing' is due to good marketing, and this is also the only reason why it has sold so many copies.

 

[timithy4569]

What pisses me off, is how people look towards Battlefield 3 as some sort of lord and saviour. Don't get me wrong I love Battlefield, more so than CoD, but good God I wish people would shut the fuck up about it.

I also agree that people who say Battlefield 3 will be ungodly are being silly. I will also say that Battlefield has the worst community, with Call of Duty in second. If you have ever heard many podcasts or read been around many Battlefield fanboys. You should have known that many believe that they are the worst and that they act like it.

Also, MacJack. Homefront was bashed about it's 5 hour campaign. In almost every critic review it was bashed on about that. The game did however had a very good multiplayer. It was a combination of quake 3, battlefield, call of duty, along with many other games. It worked and probably the biggest gripe about the multipleyer was that snipers were overpowered in almost every way.

Honestly? you are the kind of people i am talking about, its not cod that its "rehashed" its everything so lets not been biased about it, in any case from 18 million people, no matter how many you played with, you can generalize the entire community on some douchebags, like another user said in a similar thread, "its the squaky wheel that gets the grease"

The generalization can be sympathized with. In general, the audience for First-Person shooters has one of the largest concentration of "Douchebags".

It is because of this:

1)It is one of the most popular games out there.

2)"Non-Douchebags" don't like hanging around many "Douchebags".

3)"Douchbags" are okay more okay with hanging around other "Douchebags".

4)Many "Non-Douchebags" leave

5)There is now a high concentration of "Dochebags"


About Doom that you bring up so much. There has been a lot of changes and everyone still most people who hated it never came back. It is praised as a classic just like Call of Duty 1-3 have and still are. I don't understand the selection of games you are choosing. They have either already been complained about,(Even good games are complained about) or are just horrible examples. I don't even understand why you are giving us these examples. Logically it doesn't even make sense. You telling us these games that weren't complained about,(They were)that still doesn't make Call of Duty Black Ops any better/ not deserving of being called annoying.

Here is why CoD is bagged on. People shouldn't buy a new Call of Duty.

1)The market is saturated.

2)The franchise is not benefiting the development community.

3)Investors are looking for the next Call of Duty and are making clones because it is doing so well(ties into number 2)

4)Call of Duty is not giving out anything new. There are now new mechanics and it is the same old same old.

5)If no one buys Call of Duty, Some other genre will(hopefully) take the reigns and would move the industry forward.

6)We are the buyers and we should be looking out for the industry. Less of the same means less boring games for everyone else.(people who don't like FPS or wants something more different)

7)You should buy other games because it does not have as many clones as Call of Duty.

8)Call of Duty Black Ops does not suck. It's a great game but if we continue to buy it the industry will suffer/ eventually the game will start sucking even though nothing is wrong with it.(It is happening now.)

9)Did everyone forget about "the sequel year" that happened last year?

 

[Zeema]

cod is not making any progress its becoming like smackdown vs raw or fifa

Agreed

but i don't like CoD but i don't go to people i hate and say 'Go Play Cod noob'

 

[razer17]

How can people hate cod? It's delicious when battered and served with fish.

 

[Gunner 51]

Spoiler

I don't think people are hating on COD per se. But rather the people who play it - especially those who are immature and spend their time screaming obscenities into their headsets whenever they get killed.

I think the COD franchise is getting pretty stale and all of it's games are nothing more than a re-hashing. But unfortunately, it's an annual re-hashing. As the saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt.

But with the advances in technology, I expect to see slightly better graphics each time or a better campaign mode or even DLC which should have been on the disc to start with to go along with it's slowly increasing price tag.

COD is poster boy, a yardstick or a mirror of the gaming industry. People aren't liking what they see. They see an overpriced flash-in-the-pan which was made in some Activision sponsored sweat-shop which not only isn't a particularly good game, but it's also riddled with cheats and glitchers.

While this could be said for any game which a hater doesn't like - COD will get the brunt of it because it's considered cool to hate that which is en vogue. Hate COD for being overpriced and bad value for money - but don't hate it because of who plays it. It's just pretentious.

Honestly most franchises outhere are doing it and no you wont see any advance in techology on dated consoles when the gam runs on 60 fps. What is so weird about that?

While most other franchises certainly offer more of the same, they usually have enough difference to mark it as a satisfactory continuation of the series. But the strange thing is, you CAN have better graphics on a current gen console.

Juxtapose the graphics between CoD 4 and Black Ops - there is a slight difference. BLOPs has a slight improvement in graphics quality, but it's several years newer than CoD 4.

 

[nuba km]

yes and nearly no one liked those games as they were worse then call of duty with meh multiplayer (CoD has terrible multiplayer) but the difference is that we aren't subjected to a new moh and hoimefront every 8-12 months, and it doesn't have a giant fan base who calls it the best game ever. It is the same reason people hate twilight, it is not just because it is a terrible movie, I mean there are far worse movies but it's fan base seems to praise twilight as the bast movie ever and that is what pisses people like movie buffs off.

easy on the "terrible" ther i wouldnt say cod has bad mp, i played many worse ones like the games i pointed out or crysis 2 or brink, in any case some of us dont like generic war fps with the usual "realism" thingy, perks and killstreaks and fast gameplay kidna changed that, but i see your point

NO, you didn't see my point as my point is here on earth and your must be somewhere on mars if you get 'I don't like realism' from me saying

a giant fan base who calls it the best game ever.

My POINT is that call of duty is a game with a average campaign and unbalanced multiplayer that requires close to no skill but rather cheap tactics.

[HEADING=2]FIRST RESPOND TO MY ORIGINAL POINT BEFORE RESPONDING TO WHAT I AM WITTING NEXT[/HEADING]

also lets take a look at brink and call of duty multiplayer:
brink: A heavily objective multiplayer with a large variation in the pace of combat and is also heavily focused on working as a team. It also has much more customisation when it comes to guns were you should properly spent the first hour or two or ten of the game figuring out your perfect gun. This is a multiplayer that only a small group of people will like and for those people it is well designed as there are very few ways to be cheap (well so far I have seen non) with weapons that feel very different to use for the most part.

that is not bad multiplayer but rather multiplayer that appeals to small group of people and often when I ask people 'why did you think brink was bad' they either say they didn't like it or that they didn't like one of the things brink was focused on. This can be logically translated to the fact that people have a habit of calling things bad that they don't like. I mean I don't really like civilisation but it is still a good game.

Call of duty: a fast paced, completely unrealistic fps with a perk system and a small variation in multiplayer modes (only big veriation are vager(or how ever you spell it) matches. this has a larger target market and therefore more people should like it. But it is very easy to be cheap in it as it is extremely unbalanced and all that killstreaks achive is but widen the gap between the person who is winning and the poeple who are losing and not due to skill level, and using anything other then a lmg or a assault rifle is like throwing cheese as a shotgun only has an effective range slightly longer then the knife dash and the smg's are too weak and have too much or a spread to make then a use for anything then killing someone point blank, but yet again you have a knife dash for that.

that is bad multiplayer but because the fan base has a large portion of players who only play CoD and/or sports games that means they don't really have any point of comparison and therefore play it with out knowing of much better experiences. Also another large chunk of the fan base are people who just care about 'owning people' and don't care about whether it takes skill and therefore CoD's heavily unbalanced multiplayer appeals do them.

 

[Silenttalker22]

You SURE its the fans that complained since "tomb raider 2" because for a game that made it through 5 rehashed games it seems unlikely, Perhaps you were selective about which people you remember

First of all yes, I'm quite sure. I was a large fan of the series. Second, you just defended the fan approval of the series, by means of it's number of sequels. By that logic, no one here complaining about COD repetitiveness is a fan, because it has a bunch of sequels.

 

[Quellist]

Ok nvm, i clicked on this thinking it was an OT post about how cod is being demonized as unsustainable and how we should eat other fish instead.

/facepalm

 

[MacJack]

CoD is maligned because nothing has changed since Cod4. NOTHING. Same gameplay, same multiplayer, same general map design, very similar campaigns, and no change in engine. When a game series starts flaunting balancing as major changes, you know your series has gone down the shitter.

saying its he same is biased. As i said i did not like black ops, i cant believe you complain about the singleplayer not being diffirent? What you want them to do? Change the sp becasue people who hate the game dont like it? Come on, its supose to be the same franchise and not something else.

You can't "think" these things. This is hardly open to debate- it's not subjective. What I gave you was an objective, fact-based post and you haven't responded with anything worthy of being called an argument.

As for the Battlefield 3 hype...have you even seen the gameplay trailers? The game is on a vastly improved engine which puts IW 4.0 (or whatever they're up to) to shame. It has some of the best, and most realistic, character animations present in video games. It is shaping up to be one of the best looking first person shooter experiences ever.

When one cannot actually play the game, graphics are a very important aspect, because all your doing when you watch a trailer is viewing. When a game has an engine like Battlefield 3 does, which is leaps and bounds ahead of its main competitor, it's going to make some jaws drop.

Am sorry but those are not facts, they ARE subjective, its like that old joke that says "take the area with an acceptable amount of casualties"

and what is the acceptable amount of casualties? In this case, what is he acceptable amount of changes and what justify them as BIG ones? SO yeah its subjective and not FACTS. Some may think one game had big changes other think otherwise.

Also the "new" engine that dice is possing with wont really do much on consoles only on pc. On consoles it runs on half the fps to do it. You can show new graphics on dated hardware. Cod had some of the best animations while bc2.. not really, now bf3 has new animations, but all i have seen from gameplay videos so far and i mean E3 MP gameplay make it look like a mix between bc2 and moh with the same animation. Truth is, dice has not realised any actual mp footage. So lets wait for them to do that.

Warning: the following post is longer than it really should be.

Actually if you take a look on brotherhood and revelation, or uncharted and stalker you will see they do the exact same thing. Like i said its easy to fix something that needs fixing and those changes will impress but the way i see it, those things should already been done right in the first place.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

-

 

[Juk3n]

edit

 

[Juk3n]

The fact still stands that they're not very good.

I think you need to look up the definition of 'fact'.

Short Shmort, i've loved every CoD campaign, length isnt an essential factor in the experience for this particular brand because the multiplayer is the meat. Nonetheless it's always a good ride on a CoD campaign despite it's length and when i finish a campaign i feel satisfied, time to embark on some kick-ass multiplayer.

 

[burhanr]

oh crap, my mouse kinda slipped and i hit report on one of the OP's post. oh crap. i swear i did not do that on purpose.

so.. er.. i have to formulate a reply to this thread then..

well, uh,
i want to say, "its a kinda cheap fun game" but even the steam summer sale cant get cod4 to go down below 20 usd, so screw that.
i want to say, "the campaign is fast paced and exciting" but so does other quality fps(bulletstorm, crysis 2), and they last longer than 4 hours, also with a bit more innovation in the game itself.
i want to say, "eh, maybe the fans aren't that bad" and i tried a bit of xbox life at my friend's house.

well shit, i kinda like the cod series, especially the modern ones, where the villains are russians/pmcs/AMERIKANS.

ya know what, why be bothered on cod haters? yes its not a very good game, but you love it, and its all that matters. the video gaming community needed something to hate so let it be cod.

 

[MacJack]

It's because of the IQ80 bro culture the CoD series brings into the gaming world. It's because the games do in fact change less than the Assassin's Creed or Stalker or Fallout series, contrary to what you believe, with each new installment. It's because the audience of those games is the most ripe for being and willing to be ripped off out there.

Actually i think they do about the same and that this "pseudo superiority" is missplaced. Those games are being bought by the same people, so that leads me to see this as "cod hate" like you ignore it about one game because you like it and bash it on another game because you dislike it.

The difference between the CoD series and the other ones you've listed here is that the other games aren't being released on a yearly basis (Assassin's Creed the exception here). Furthermore, these other games always come with engine improvements, gameplay enhancements, story development, etc far beyond what CoD does every year. Aside from making new multiplayer maps and weak 4 hour campaigns, not much goes into CoD's annual releases. There are minor additions such as the odd new weapon or killstreak reward, but the fatigue from what is essentially a re-skinned game with different art assets coming out every year is definitely souring most gamers' view of the series.

Now, just because they use the same formulae to success as each other, does not mean they don't make any changes and it would be stupid to say so otherwise. You only have to play MW and WaW to tell that each game has a very different atmosphere from the other. WaW is a great representation of how brutal the war was, helped by the murky feel to the game and the high level of gore. Did MW feel like this? No. It is what it is.
MW2 again feels nothing like MW or WaW. Blops only feels a lot like MW2 because they have a similar visual style (Graphically, it's at a high standard) But it still has a sense of uniqueness to it.

You have no argument with the story. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean they're no improvement over the other. I personally loved the World at war campaign and I know a lot of people enjoyed MW.
Plus WaW adds zombies. MW2 has Spec ops, Blops again had zombies. They're all very individual games.

Very well said.

so its not really biased at all,it sounds more like your being a fanboy over this game and you cant hold it in anymore...

..What? When I read the OP, it seemed like he was just tired of hearing about the CoD hate. You can't assume he's a fanboy of the CoD series. He even set out many examples about games being related in similar matters.

Also, I agree with him. Though I don't really admire CoD because of their fans being truly biased thinking they know everything- you can't be hating the game without knowing why. Many hate the CoD series is because it's been around for the longest time with the same stuff set in place except with some tweaks thus somehow still being popular. People hate that, and think the CoD series doesn't deserve that type of attention.

Not really into their games anymore, but I have been running into a lot of hateful topics and rants about CoD which is sort of getting out of hand overall. But seriously, assuming is the worst thing you can do in a discussion because it'll always mislead you. Take it from me by personal experience.. but not telling you that you must listen to me for you have the right to post how you want. Just giving you advise is all.

Agreed, i am just pointing out that while i like all those things, cod hatred is biased since those things can be said for many other games, i guess that makes me a "cod fanboy" because am not cool since i dont hate cod like the rest

/Sarcasm

But MW is terrible and the sequels are a rehash of a broken game which is why it gets so much criticism. It has also done noting new to the genre. The only reason it is 'the game everyone is playing' is due to good marketing, and this is also the only reason why it has sold so many copies.

Thats what am talking about, you hate mw, we get it, its ok but dont make it a fact on how its universally considered to be "terrible" I mean ATLEAST cod4 we can all agree that it was a great game.

 

[nuba km]

(TF2 has terrible multiplayer)

Fixed it for you.

by by 'fixing' my post so stupidly

 

[The Cheezy One]

People are saying that its because they have made no improvements since its release.

Come up with your own improvements, then we'll talk. Comparing it to AC doesn't work, because AC has a lot more freedom to improve, as there are more elements to it. When your game is based around running and gunning, it doesn't quite fit to try to cut some of it out.

I still find it to be a fairly interesting, OTT shooter, and I enjoy it (well, not Black Ops. Hearing the words 'Dragovich, Kravchenco, Steiner. All must die' whenever I close my eyes damaged the experience for me)

EDIT: and of course, the COD4 lightning will not strike again, as originality, by definition will only happen once. If we had MW2 in place of COD4, it would probably receive roughly the same result as MW1, although somewhat watered down.