why does call of duty get so much hate?

[Atothex]

Call of Duty has become like the Madden and NHL games. They may as well skip naming them and just go with Call of Duty: 2013. Of course, that opens the market up to more spinoffs if one particular year is more popular. CoD:2013:2 anyone?

I don't really get angry at CoD, it's a mediocre series that doesn't appeal to me, so I don't play it. And that's fine. What I do feel is pity for those folks who feel obligated to buy the next one. I mean, is it for the story? I doubt it. Are there really that many changes made that every sequel must be bought? You've been tricked, CoD fans, by a cruel, cruel, joke.

So... does CoD deserve the hate? Not really. It doesn't deserve any energy from those people who already don't like the games because it's getting a surplus from those who do. My advice is just let the people who like them buy the games and just don't bother.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I've always seen it as a bit of MovieBob syndrome. You know that group of guys that picked on you in high school and never let you hang out with them? They like CoD. You know what else? CoD makes a ton of money because a lot of people like it. It thus follows that CoD is something you should hate.

 

[HarryScull]

You say that "as a competitive player" you see the games as being "vastly different."
What you should explain is how they are different?
How has the game changed substantially since call of duty 4?

it depends how much you play and how well you understand the game, if you play on a competitive level they are very different but if you play once a week or less (like i suspect most people on this site do, after reading how little they understand even the basics of call of duty like the spawn system) you will find it hard to tell them apart (except for wager matches and zombies)

ive answered some peoples questions on this already and i would recommend looking at those if your genuinely interested

 

[kayo of the Well]

.

 

[HarryScull]

big snip

1. the argument isnt whether or not you think the changes are good or bad it is did changes happen which you openly admit did, how can you admit that the game has changed but also say that it doesnt innovate

2. its a very valid point that to people who dont play the game much (like people who dont like it for example) that the games are SSDD but the more you play the more you will notice the subtle difference's, the same is true for every popular FPS sires ive played so far, and its a relevant point to bring up when i try and talk about things as simple as the spawn system or traffic pattern being different and people saying "spawns, that's bullshit, there not important, they didnt change, they dont change jack e.c.t" when its a well known fact among the cod community (certainly the competitive side) that stuff like that makes a huge difference (this also includes flak jacket, if you dont even understand or accept how the create a class and statistics effects the game its almost pointless debating with you, see the pigeon analogy)

3. ive defended the same counter argument's you have bought up in other comments before

4. before this thread gets any more derailed the question was "why does call of duty get so much hate" not "why do you personally hate call of duty, flame me please! im a good punching bag!"

 

[Lugbzurg]

1. it wasnt even the main part of my post
Did I say that? No, it was a major part of your post that you'd put in bold print.
2. 99.9% of people ive met who play it agree that it is, i really didnt expect so many people saying it isnt
Wow, other people just like you that agree with you! You must be so special!
3. arguing that black ops is the same as mw2 is like arguing that american football is the same as rugby, sure its on the same field and they do similar things but they are 2 very different sports
Seriously? Could point out, like, any point in time I ever made a statement like this?
4. look at the comments ive made defending it, already then call me out, ive had this debate with 1 person already and really can't be bothered to fight another flame warrior
*mega facepalm* Then why would you make an entire thread about it? What did you think was going to happen? That "99.9%" of the people here would just agree with you? Also, no one here has ever flamed. at all.

1. new guns/gun balance (more powerful SMG's/assult rifles less powerful shotguns/snipers)
Wheee! Balance! This is something we'd pretty much perfected a couple decades or so ago! Also, it's such a minor asset.
2. the spawn system
Umm... Yay?
3. the traffic pattern
Point?
4. whole new maps
This is almost all that Call of Duty is. This is a given. It's been this way since the 80s! For you to actually bother listing this as a feature just shows off more of how desperate this series really is. Not to mention how it isn't entirely true, since they keep clogging overpriced copies of older maps onto later games.
5. whole new game types
More ways to kill stuff in slight variations. What fun!
6. wager matches
What a fantastic idea! Let's take pointless risks and watch what happens!
7. flack jacket changed objective games hugely
Seriously? The jacket?
8. killstreaks were no longer stackable
This about on par with "You can make your character purple".
9. it was allot less noob friendly
"Allot"? As in "Distribute"? Or, do you mean "a lot"? It's hard to take you seriously when you're making so many bad spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc. errors so many times.
10. it added a huge amount of customization on the form of your weapon and emblem
Yay! My own personal logo! This changes the game so much!
11. for what its worth it had zombies (although cod 5 had zombies)
Zombies = innovation? Sorry, no. Besides, the "Nazi Zombie" concept is so messed up in so many ways.

I've made several points here, but, I think Eternal Taros' were even better and more valid.

1. not even an argument
2. "EVERYONE AGREES WITH ME!" Not an argument. Not even logically valid
3. Nonsensical analogy. The comparison would be valid if rugby was the exact same as football, except with a different colored ball that weighs half a pound more (for balance reasons) and a slightly different scoring system. Which of course, isn't true.
4. Not an argument

1. Slight statistical differences in weapon balance don't constitute a sequel.
2. The difference the "new" spawn system has is negligible and pretty shitty anyways. There are endless cases of people getting spawn trapped and completely raped by the other team in BO. Not exactly an improvement over MW2
3. What? What is this I don't even
4. New maps? You paid $60 for new maps?
5. New game types? You are willing to pay $60 for a new game type? That's more along the lines of DLC
6. Wager matches are a new game type. Rehash of 5.
7. Statistical differences in explosive damage are a game changer? And you paid $60 for it?
8. I addressed this point already
9. HOW was it noob friendly? Declarative statements don't help your case
10. Custom emblems. $60 Dollars.
11. This is an invalid analogy because you're making shitty, shitty points. In this case the pigeon appears to be the better player.

Hate to be so blunt, but nonsensical arguments get on my nerves.

 

[HarryScull]

1. it wasnt even the main part of my post
Did I say that? No, it was a major part of your post that you'd put in bold print.
2. 99.9% of people ive met who play it agree that it is, i really didnt expect so many people saying it isnt
Wow, other people just like you that agree with you! You must be so special!
3. arguing that black ops is the same as mw2 is like arguing that american football is the same as rugby, sure its on the same field and they do similar things but they are 2 very different sports
Seriously? Could point out, like, any point in time I ever made a statement like this?
4. look at the comments ive made defending it, already then call me out, ive had this debate with 1 person already and really can't be bothered to fight another flame warrior
*mega facepalm* Then why would you make an entire thread about it? What did you think was going to happen? That "99.9%" of the people here would just agree with you? Also, no one here has ever flamed. at all.

1. new guns/gun balance (more powerful SMG's/assult rifles less powerful shotguns/snipers)
Wheee! Balance! This is something we'd pretty much perfected a couple decades or so ago! Also, it's such a minor asset.
2. the spawn system
Umm... Yay?
3. the traffic pattern
Point?
4. whole new maps
This is almost all that Call of Duty is. This is a given. It's been this way since the 80s! For you to actually bother listing this as a feature just shows off more of how desperate this series really is. Not to mention how it isn't entirely true, since they keep clogging overpriced copies of older maps onto later games.
5. whole new game types
More ways to kill stuff in slight variations. What fun!
6. wager matches
What a fantastic idea! Let's take pointless risks and watch what happens!
7. flack jacket changed objective games hugely
Seriously? The jacket?
8. killstreaks were no longer stackable
This about on par with "You can make your character purple".
9. it was allot less noob friendly
"Allot"? As in "Distribute"? Or, do you mean "a lot"? It's hard to take you seriously when you're making so many bad spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc. errors so many times.
10. it added a huge amount of customization on the form of your weapon and emblem
Yay! My own personal logo! This changes the game so much!
11. for what its worth it had zombies (although cod 5 had zombies)
Zombies = innovation? Sorry, no. Besides, the "Nazi Zombie" concept is so messed up in so many ways.

1. it wasn't a major part of my post, i added a small off topic bit marked as off topic and said that i just wanted to clear up some misconceptions, the main part of my post was the question "why does cod get so much hate"
2. the question wasn't "do you like the changes made" it was "were changes made" which you just admitted that changes happen, whether they are good or worth £40 is up to personal choice

 

[HarryScull]

1. the argument isnt whether or not you think the changes are good or bad it is did changes happen which you openly admit did, how can you admit that the game has changed but also say that it doesnt innovate

2. its a very valid point that to people who dont play the game much (like people who dont like it for example) that the games are SSDD but the more you play the more you will notice the subtle difference's, the same is true for every popular FPS sires ive played so far, and its a relevant point to bring up when i try and talk about things as simple as the spawn system or traffic pattern being different and people saying "spawns, that's bullshit, there not important, they didnt change, they dont change jack e.c.t" when its a well known fact among the cod community (certainly the competitive side) that stuff like that makes a huge difference (this also includes flak jacket, if you dont even understand or accept how the create a class and statistics effects the game its almost pointless debating with you, see the pigeon analogy)

3. ive defended the same counter argument's you have bought up in other comments before

4. before this thread gets any more derailed the question was "why does call of duty get so much hate" not "why do you personally hate call of duty, flame me please! im a good punching bag!"

2. If no one notices the difference it doesn't matter.
If I make a game and then make a sequel that is extremely similar in mechanics and gameplay but has slight changes in the way that it's coded, you can't say I "innovated"
I'm not saying these subtle changes shouldn't exist. I'm saying maybe it's just you.
If you want to see something badly enough, you'll see it.
No doubt it effects the game. I'm not saying that there is no effect.
It's just not enough to constitute a sequel. I'm not sure why you can't grasp this simple concept.
Again. Your primary contention boils down to "It's too deep for you to understand"

ok the rest of the post i can let slide but this is ridiculous

1. people do notice the changes, just because you dont it doesn't mean that other people do not
2. whether or not the changes merit a sequel is up to you, i personally do (and apparently allot of other people do), you dont, cant we just agree to disagree on that because it's really tiresome to argue on that
3. thats because the things that are "to deep for you" are the fucking basics!, its like me saying oh i hate pokemon wait you can catch pokemon?, nah im still not interested, that probably isnt important because i haven't done it yet, this game fucking sucks (this covers 3. as well)

/edit also thought id add, on the battlefield thing, its about the same level of change between the cod and battlefield games, i dont notice how much BF changes because i dont play it often, whereas in cod because i play it a lot i notice the changes more

 

[Active Schizophrenic]

I giggled a bit when you put the words "competitive" and "Call of Duty" in the same sentence. To quote from the immortal words of TotalBiscuit: "Imagine your playing a competitive game of football, and the ball is magnetically attracted to the inside of the net. So all you have to do is kick the ball somewhere near the general direction of the net, and it will go in. This is competitive Call of Duty"

 

[DeathSwitch109]

Because it's the same game every year with a fresh coat of paint. MW1 was a breath of fresh air but at that point on it's just the same copy and paste formula.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

The word "innovation" is getting thrown around a lot here.

I'm not convinced the majority of the people using it actually understand its meaning in relation to the gaming industry.

Adding new weapon skins to a game isn't innovation. Innovation would be if you can do something with those guns that you couldn't do before in any other games. The first time an FPS offered alternate fire modes for guns - THAT was innovation. The first time an FPS used regenerating health - THAT was innovation. The first time an FPS let you hop into a vehicle and drive it around - THAT was innovation. Etc.

Every FPS released with those features afterward wouldn't be innovating anything. They'd be iterating it.

If a new Call of Duty game were to come out and you could hop into Humvees or Strykers or whatever in multiplayer and drive them around (actually controlling them, not rail-shooter-esque like the AC-130 killstreaks)... even though that would be new to Call of Duty, that feature itself isn't new to the genre, and as such, isn't innovation. It's iteration, because you're reiterating a previously established innovation.

 

[M-E-D The Poet]

Because it isn't very good, has an obnoxious fanbase, and is (arguably unfairly) blamed for a lot of problems with modern shooters?

1. if it wasn't good it wouldn't be popular, i can see why some people may personally dislike the game but to call it a bad game is probably wrong

Twilight is popular. Transformers is popular. Miller Light is popular. That doesn't make them good.

2. as mentioned above, my experience with the call of duty community is that they are just normal people, the fans can be obnoxious but then again portal fans are obnoxious, heck 99.9% of fans are obnoxious regardless of what game/company they are a fan of and hating on a game over its fans seams like a shallow thing to do

Well, having played Modern Warfare 2, Bad Company 2, Team Fortress 2, and Tribes: Ascend quite a bit (each), I've gotta say that CoD by far had the most people throwing racial/homophobic slurs at each other, people hacking and/or accusing others of hacking, 12-year-olds screaming into their mics, and so on.

1. i accept that even though i personally do not like twilight it does not make twilight a bad movie and it doesn't mean that people who do like it are wrong and i think that thinking that way is very narrow minded

2. i will accept that call of duty has a larger population of annoying children than allot of other games however they remain a vocal minority and although they may lessen your (and my) enjoyment of the game i do not see how it makes the game itself a bad thing or make it a target to be hated on just because it has a relatively poor community

3. you didnt answer point 3 or 4 from my last comment please would you share your opinion on them?

No twilight is actually terribly written, horribly executed but loved by a whole lot of people for all the wrong reasons

When the writer of a work thinks her own product is a blight, when the actors working on a movie loathe their own parts.

That's when you know you're headed in the crapperwrapper direction.

The reason why so many people play cod is because it's a brand name.
Owning Call of Duty(over other shooters) , Fifa/Madden Etc(over pro evo) or Halo(over other scifi shooters) is like drinking Coca cola (over pepsi) or drinking budweiser/heineken (over actual beer)

there's little kids that own every halo game, every cod game and every madden game, why ? because their parent sbuy it for them and the name is connected to the brand.

you see where the great divide is even in the COD community itself, there are people who fucking loathe blackops who love WaW and reverse.
If you ask them why, nobody can really explain it.

Being a Triple A brand/franchise doesn't necesarily mean you're product is of great quality, it means you know marketing PR, and how to dominate a leading position

 

[Chunga the Great]

Because they took a series that provided a intense but authentic approach to WWII shooters, made a fantastic game set in modern day and then shat all over the series by appealing more to the college fratboy demographic than the actual fanbase. The series got progressively better and better until MW2, which was screwed over by terrible map design, overpowered killstreaks, and same-y weapon design. It's been crap ever since.

 

[C2Ultima]

Wii Sports - 76 million (Wii)

I don't think Wii Sports should count. It only technically sold that much because it was included with every Wii. Barely anybody would go buy Wii Sports on its own.

OT: People always blow things way out of proportion. It's just the nature of the internet to take any partial feelings of descent, and magnify them to a pretty ridiculous extent.