why does call of duty get so much hate?

Recommended Videos

HarryScull

New member
Apr 26, 2012
225
0
0
Nazulu said:
Once again, I just find it pathetic they release roughly the same game every year for $100 (in Australia). How uncreative can you get?

Can you imagine if all the biggest developers found a cash cow like COD and milked that every year? Same games every year after year
mm yes that would be bad "cough" bethesda "cough"
oh wait most people round here love bethesda...

(p.s if you try to argue with me that fallout 3 and fallout new vegas or oblivion and skyrim are more different from each other than MW2 and Blops your going to lose)
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
HarryScull said:
Nazulu said:
Once again, I just find it pathetic they release roughly the same game every year for $100 (in Australia). How uncreative can you get?

Can you imagine if all the biggest developers found a cash cow like COD and milked that every year? Same games every year after year
mm yes that would be bad "cough" bethesda "cough"
oh wait most people round here love bethesda...

(p.s if you try to argue with me that fallout 3 and fallout new vegas or oblivion and skyrim are more different from each other than MW2 and Blops your going to lose)
Bethesda didn't make FO:NV and neither are they yearly releases.
 

HarryScull

New member
Apr 26, 2012
225
0
0
Glademaster said:
HarryScull said:
Nazulu said:
Once again, I just find it pathetic they release roughly the same game every year for $100 (in Australia). How uncreative can you get?

Can you imagine if all the biggest developers found a cash cow like COD and milked that every year? Same games every year after year
mm yes that would be bad "cough" bethesda "cough"
oh wait most people round here love bethesda...

(p.s if you try to argue with me that fallout 3 and fallout new vegas or oblivion and skyrim are more different from each other than MW2 and Blops your going to lose)
Bethesda didn't make FO:NV and neither are they yearly releases.
they still milk the same cash cow for money, keeping the same base game and just tarting it up a bit and if you really want i'll throw down my assassin's creed trump card.

im not saying it is a bad thing to keep the same core game and change it's features, in fact thats how good sequel's should work but why people hate call of duty for not being innovative than go and buy assassin's creed without even seeing the irony i dont know
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
HarryScull said:
Glademaster said:
HarryScull said:
Nazulu said:
Once again, I just find it pathetic they release roughly the same game every year for $100 (in Australia). How uncreative can you get?

Can you imagine if all the biggest developers found a cash cow like COD and milked that every year? Same games every year after year
mm yes that would be bad "cough" bethesda "cough"
oh wait most people round here love bethesda...

(p.s if you try to argue with me that fallout 3 and fallout new vegas or oblivion and skyrim are more different from each other than MW2 and Blops your going to lose)
Bethesda didn't make FO:NV and neither are they yearly releases.
they still milk the same cash cow for money, keeping the same base game and just tarting it up a bit and if you really want i'll throw down my assassin's creed trump card.

im not saying it is a bad thing to keep the same core game and change it's features, in fact thats how good sequel's should work but why people hate call of duty for not being innovative than go and buy assassin's creed without even seeing the irony i dont know
People do hate Assassin's Creed for not mixing it up your just reading and paying more attention to the Call of Duty comments because you like CoD more.

No Skyrim is not a rehash of Oblivion the same way BO is a rehash of CoD 4. Excluding normal changes like campaigns and time period weapons you have more killstreaks, new perks, dual wielding and new maps. That is all I can think of that is different. Even its defining feature of dual wielding was already done in the previous game. Its only other defining feature was the theatre the only real advancement it made in terms of CoD games.

Now I can't compare FO 3 to NV as I don't own NV.

Skyrim is a different beast to Oblivion. It has completely new spell mechanics, new forging mechanics, dual wielding, new perk mechanics, reduced stats, changed levelling up mechanics and then the standard stuff like new spell types via shouts and the gimmicky stuff like the stylish kills. It also has mods on CoD so it can become what you want it to be something CoD could have but it decided to forgo to try and get more money from DLC.
 

Rock-nerd

New member
Apr 6, 2012
159
0
0
I made a thread like this and got a bunch of negative comments on it.Feels bad man.
 

FallenMessiah88

So fucking thrilled to be here!
Jan 8, 2010
470
0
0
Because they're popular...

...And that's about it.

EDIT: Or that's one of the main reasons. Other reasons would be that they're pretty samey and that at this point, they're pretty much just one big cash cow.

Still, I like Cod and I've always found them be to pretty decent games.
 

HarryScull

New member
Apr 26, 2012
225
0
0
Glademaster said:
HarryScull said:
Glademaster said:
HarryScull said:
Nazulu said:
Once again, I just find it pathetic they release roughly the same game every year for $100 (in Australia). How uncreative can you get?

Can you imagine if all the biggest developers found a cash cow like COD and milked that every year? Same games every year after year
mm yes that would be bad "cough" bethesda "cough"
oh wait most people round here love bethesda...

(p.s if you try to argue with me that fallout 3 and fallout new vegas or oblivion and skyrim are more different from each other than MW2 and Blops your going to lose)
Bethesda didn't make FO:NV and neither are they yearly releases.
they still milk the same cash cow for money, keeping the same base game and just tarting it up a bit and if you really want i'll throw down my assassin's creed trump card.

im not saying it is a bad thing to keep the same core game and change it's features, in fact thats how good sequel's should work but why people hate call of duty for not being innovative than go and buy assassin's creed without even seeing the irony i dont know
skyrim is a different beast to Oblivion. It has completely new spell mechanics, new forging mechanics, dual wielding, new perk mechanics, reduced stats, changed levelling up mechanics and then the standard stuff like new spell types via shouts and the gimmicky stuff like the stylish kills. It also has mods on CoD so it can become what you want it to be something CoD could have but it decided to forgo to try and get more money from DLC.
oh boy you baited me here, so ways in which Blops is different to mw2
1. new guns/gun balance (more powerful SMG's/assult rifles less powerful shotguns/snipers)
2. the spawn system
3. the traffic pattern
4. whole new maps
5. whole new game types
6. wager matches
7. flack jacket changed objective games hugely
8. killstreaks were no longer stackable
9. it was allot less noob friendly
10. it added a huge amount of customization on the form of your weapon and emblem
11. for what its worth it had zombies (although cod 5 had zombies)

yep skyrim is much more innovative than call of duty!/sarcasm

in truth they are probably on about the same level of innovation, keeping core gameplay mechanics and changing other features to create a different game, which is the right thing to do.

could you imagine if skyrim 2 came out and it was a linear cover based shooter? most people would lose their shit and thats what people want from call of duty, if you expect a different game very release you are not going to get it and for good reason
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
HarryScull said:
Nazulu said:
Once again, I just find it pathetic they release roughly the same game every year for $100 (in Australia). How uncreative can you get?

Can you imagine if all the biggest developers found a cash cow like COD and milked that every year? Same games every year after year
mm yes that would be bad "cough" bethesda "cough"
oh wait most people round here love bethesda...

(p.s if you try to argue with me that fallout 3 and fallout new vegas or oblivion and skyrim are more different from each other than MW2 and Blops your going to lose)
I'm not going to argue, I 100% agree. It's just I hear and see more FPS similar to COD than anything else.

I haven't played any of the Fallouts yet, but I found both Oblivion and Skyrim real disappointment's. I can tell you right now that I don't love Bethesda.

Hell, even Valve has been disappointing.
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
HarryScull said:
Glademaster said:
HarryScull said:
Glademaster said:
HarryScull said:
Nazulu said:
Once again, I just find it pathetic they release roughly the same game every year for $100 (in Australia). How uncreative can you get?

Can you imagine if all the biggest developers found a cash cow like COD and milked that every year? Same games every year after year
mm yes that would be bad "cough" bethesda "cough"
oh wait most people round here love bethesda...

(p.s if you try to argue with me that fallout 3 and fallout new vegas or oblivion and skyrim are more different from each other than MW2 and Blops your going to lose)
Bethesda didn't make FO:NV and neither are they yearly releases.
they still milk the same cash cow for money, keeping the same base game and just tarting it up a bit and if you really want i'll throw down my assassin's creed trump card.

im not saying it is a bad thing to keep the same core game and change it's features, in fact thats how good sequel's should work but why people hate call of duty for not being innovative than go and buy assassin's creed without even seeing the irony i dont know
skyrim is a different beast to Oblivion. It has completely new spell mechanics, new forging mechanics, dual wielding, new perk mechanics, reduced stats, changed levelling up mechanics and then the standard stuff like new spell types via shouts and the gimmicky stuff like the stylish kills. It also has mods on CoD so it can become what you want it to be something CoD could have but it decided to forgo to try and get more money from DLC.
oh boy you baited me here, so ways in which Blops is different to mw2
1. new guns/gun balance (more powerful SMG's/assult rifles less powerful shotguns/snipers)
2. the spawn system
3. the traffic pattern
4. whole new maps
5. whole new game types
6. wager matches
7. flack jacket changed objective games hugely
8. killstreaks were no longer stackable
9. it was allot less noob friendly
10. it added a huge amount of customization on the form of your weapon and emblem
11. for what its worth it had zombies (although cod 5 had zombies)

yep skyrim is much more innovative than call of duty!/sarcasm

in truth they are probably on about the same level of innovation, keeping core gameplay mechanics and changing other features to create a different game, which is the right thing to do.

could you imagine if skyrim 2 came out and it was a linear cover based shooter? most people would lose their shit and thats what people want from call of duty, if you expect a different game very release you are not going to get it and for good reason
1. The balance was awful and I don't go around giving praise for doing a shit job.
2. Same as above and the spawn system has not changed since CoD 4 in any noticeable or good fashion.
3. Already mention as part of theatre.
4. Skyrim has new maps and every game has new maps. New maps is not a big or innovative thing especially when all of the new maps involve the same gameplay style.
5 & 6. These are really the same point as those were the only new things which were pretty much already taken from other things and the pre game of scrims so no nothing innovative there.
7. Yes in WaW...
8. Not exactly an innovation now is it?
9. No it wasn't unless you're talking about making latter weapons genuinely better than lower ones which was not a good thing.
10. Yes and that affected gameplay how?
11. Not innovation but I'll give you this one in comparison to CoD.

All in all you mentioned 2 things I forgot and one which was completely superficial and aesthetic which is hardly a big change. A good few of the things you mentioned I already mentioned that were new anyway.

So lets total it up as to what are actual changes and tweaks killstreaks(already mentioned), theatre(already mentioned), 4 new game types, some aesthetic additions, zombies, dual wielding. Not exactly a long list of changes for a threeish year since most of the changes were in other titles beforehand.

The only big changes were the game types and theatre so yeah not as much as Skyrim.
 

RedFeather1975

New member
Apr 26, 2008
78
0
0
I don't hate Call of Duty, but I don't feel it deserves much attention.
I personally feel it adds no more to the market's diversity and liveliness than each Fifa game does.
 

HarryScull

New member
Apr 26, 2012
225
0
0
Glademaster said:
HarryScull said:
Glademaster said:
HarryScull said:
Glademaster said:
HarryScull said:
Nazulu said:
Once again, I just find it pathetic they release roughly the same game every year for $100 (in Australia). How uncreative can you get?

Can you imagine if all the biggest developers found a cash cow like COD and milked that every year? Same games every year after year
mm yes that would be bad "cough" bethesda "cough"
oh wait most people round here love bethesda...

(p.s if you try to argue with me that fallout 3 and fallout new vegas or oblivion and skyrim are more different from each other than MW2 and Blops your going to lose)
Bethesda didn't make FO:NV and neither are they yearly releases.
they still milk the same cash cow for money, keeping the same base game and just tarting it up a bit and if you really want i'll throw down my assassin's creed trump card.

im not saying it is a bad thing to keep the same core game and change it's features, in fact thats how good sequel's should work but why people hate call of duty for not being innovative than go and buy assassin's creed without even seeing the irony i dont know
skyrim is a different beast to Oblivion. It has completely new spell mechanics, new forging mechanics, dual wielding, new perk mechanics, reduced stats, changed levelling up mechanics and then the standard stuff like new spell types via shouts and the gimmicky stuff like the stylish kills. It also has mods on CoD so it can become what you want it to be something CoD could have but it decided to forgo to try and get more money from DLC.
oh boy you baited me here, so ways in which Blops is different to mw2
1. new guns/gun balance (more powerful SMG's/assult rifles less powerful shotguns/snipers)
2. the spawn system
3. the traffic pattern
4. whole new maps
5. whole new game types
6. wager matches
7. flack jacket changed objective games hugely
8. killstreaks were no longer stackable
9. it was allot less noob friendly
10. it added a huge amount of customization on the form of your weapon and emblem
11. for what its worth it had zombies (although cod 5 had zombies)

yep skyrim is much more innovative than call of duty!/sarcasm

in truth they are probably on about the same level of innovation, keeping core gameplay mechanics and changing other features to create a different game, which is the right thing to do.

could you imagine if skyrim 2 came out and it was a linear cover based shooter? most people would lose their shit and thats what people want from call of duty, if you expect a different game very release you are not going to get it and for good reason
1. The balance was awful and I don't go around giving praise for doing a shit job.
2. Same as above and the spawn system has not changed since CoD 4 in any noticeable or good fashion.
3. Already mention as part of theatre.
4. Skyrim has new maps and every game has new maps. New maps is not a big or innovative thing especially when all of the new maps involve the same gameplay style.
5 & 6. These are really the same point as those were the only new things which were pretty much already taken from other things and the pre game of scrims so no nothing innovative there.
7. Yes in WaW...
8. Not exactly an innovation now is it?
9. No it wasn't unless you're talking about making latter weapons genuinely better than lower ones which was not a good thing.
10. Yes and that affected gameplay how?
11. Not innovation but I'll give you this one in comparison to CoD.

All in all you mentioned 2 things I forgot and one which was completely superficial and aesthetic which is hardly a big change. A good few of the things you mentioned I already mentioned that were new anyway.
1. the balance in Blops is very good with the exception of the famas and 74U, but it changed the game from sniping, quickscopers and shotgun/SMG secondary's to a whole new gun set up, its not perfect but its good and differant
2. it really did, for one you spawn further away from the action, also spawns stick more and are harder to flip and are put in positions of cover to help stop spawn killing
3.??? whole fucking new traffic patterns, instead of the fight being spread out and all over the place it occurs along very specific paths and area's (also thanks for reminding me, it added theater mode)
4. yes skyrim and cod both add new maps, the maps in blops were very different to mw2 in the way they played
5. wager matches are completely separate to standard MP, also i forgot to mention the cod point system was added
6.??? it changed all game types as instead of being able to nade an objective you actually have to get up close and shoot the guy making defense much harder, especially with the objectives being put in much harder spots to defend than in mw2
7.it hugely changed how people played the game, from getting a 5 killstreak and building to a 11 to playing with a whole range of kill streaks from a 3,4,5 to a 8,9,11 and widened the gap between a skilled player and a noob, and forced people to play smart for killstreaks not just get a lucky 5 killstreak
8. mw2 had deathstreaks, nooob tubes, guns with lower recoil and stopping power, this made it a much more noob friendly game than Blops
9. it didnt but its still a cool innovation that i can have a cool clan tag and emblem on my gun

your arguing from a position of ignorance my friend and its just making you look stupid to me
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
HarryScull said:
your arguing from a position of ignorance my friend and its just making you look stupid to me
Yes because 1,000 hours 700 of which I can vouch for through xfire on CoDs 2 and 4 and 40 painful hours of BO puts me at a point of ignorance. Along with playing many scrims. I never have and never will touch the shit that was MW2 as I will never let that sorry excuse for a fuck you to part of its fanbase touch any of my hdds.

The game was only ever about quick scoping on consoles and making spawns stick more was not a good thing. The game did not help stop spawn killing at all and only served to exacerbate the issue even more.

Also having maps that make everything close quarters to mid combat is not an improvement it is stale and boring.

The CoD point system was a joke and nothing I would ever applaud as it did the exact opposite of what was intended. I wouldn't hold up something that straight out failed.

Not a big deal since it was in WaW so it was already done before in the same series thus not an innovation and the maps were generally a clusterfuck so that was not an issue but since I was comparing to CoD 4 I didn't want to make a big issue of it.

It really didn't it just made people camp more and more likely to use the more wildly imbalance weapons in comparison to other games. The killstreaks they added just made the game entirely bull shit if you were unlucky enough to get someone with a high killstreak. 1 person getting 1 killstreak should not win you the game.

I have no idea what killstreak variety was in MW 2 but in BO it may as well have had the variety of CoD 4 as everyone bar 2 people used all the same stuff.

Black Ops has much more powerful spray and pray guns, flamethrower attachments, noobtubes, shotgun attachments and ballistic knife. The only thing holding it back from being noob friendly is death streaks.
 

surg3n

New member
May 16, 2011
709
0
0
I think that there's a difference between playing COD competitively, and playing online. I just don't play COD, I might have the odd game, but I don't go out of my way to play it, not like I will do with BF3. Sorry to make that comparison, but anyway. When I did play Black Ops, it would tend to be co-op split screen, those missions where you have to use stealth, or wipe out an insurgent village etc. I found that to be quite good fun, and not as frustrating as playing online.

Really, I think COD3 ruined COD for me... I really liked the original 2 games, then I got COD3 on xbox and could work out what the hell had happened with it. Running around trying to play online, it was just so badly implimented, jeeps that don't work right... and I could see where the franchise was going, close quarter run-in-with-your-dick-in-hand gameplay, kinda like being forced through a cheese grater, or mincing machine, in a loop.
Now the gameplay has obviously improved and now it's a more viceral game, still close quarters, still being fed into a mincer, but I can see how that's my fault for not playing the game since birth. Thing is, I prefer to play games my own way, and I don't play the way that works well with COD. I play COD and hope not to die too much, I play BF3 and hope not to die! - it's much more difficult for people to completely own you, you can always catch a break, jump in a tank, and there seems to be some good team based gameplay in there if you get into a good server. COD is lacking that, everybody seems to be out for themself - everyone wants to get a nuke or whatever and win the game, who cares about the rest of the team.

I guess COD just doesn't quite gel with me - I prefer my games to be slower paced and more tactical, with a faster paced game like COD, well there has to be balance, and that's missing IMO. If your fighting over a large map, then the faster you respawn the better - you might have a long run before you get near any action, so the quicker you get back onto the battle the better. With a small map, close quarters, well there has to be some sort of balance - a close quarters game with quick respawns is basically a meat grinder, respawn-run-die-respawn-run-die... gets tiresome. If they did something like CounterStrike, say the rounds are quicker, 3 rounds per map and if you die, you are spectating until the next round - add in some reason not to run and die, make people reconsider and think about their next move, make it risky to sit and camp. I'm not saying other FPS games are perfect, but I would say that Counterstrike is a great way to do close quarters, and BF3 is the epiphony of battling over a large area. COD would be one of my favorite games if it just picked a side and stuck to it.

I don't think COD deserves the success it has, because it belittles the efforts that other FPS games make - like Farcry2 - that has some great features, great viceral gameplay that COD fans should love - both long range and close quarters battles, vehicles, a fricken map editor, leatherman surgery, setting fires, great explosives. The single player game is far better than COD's, and probably most MP centric FPS games, it's like story based and free roaming at the same time. Yet, it's about as popular as German dentist - it gets to the point where Farcry3 looks awesome, but it's almost pointless to hold onto any hope for it, a FPS game with a holy-christ-how-epic map editor and kick-ass SP campaign should be the top dog, but because the COD franchise exists, it will never even get close.

So, I guess what I'm saying is COD is over-rated, it detrements the cool stuff that other FPS games try to offer, it stiffles the evolution of it's own genre, and it won't ever change very much, just in case some millions of fanboys get all butt-hurt about it. I'd love to see the next COD game do things differently, not so much bringing a couple of nice visuals to the table, but wipe the table clear and start with the best features of COD and then evolve. Maybe the popularity of BF3 will enforce that, time will tell. I'd love to see the next COD reinvent itself, and tell it's fanboys to either get on with it, or get over it.
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
Grey Day for Elcia said:
TheKasp said:
Ehm, the Twilight movies are bad
Aaannnddd you lost every single ounce of credibility you could have had. You don't get to decide what is good or bad for other people. Sorry. Sit down, get off your pedestal, and stop trying to act like art isn't subjective.
There are commonly accepted standards by which literature and film are judged. By those standards, Twilight (the book and the movie) are terrible. Are these standards subjective? Yup. Does that mean that they are somehow invalid? Of course not.
 

No-one Special

New member
Apr 16, 2009
40
0
0
I don't hate Call of Duty, but I dislike it a lot. There are a few simple reasons behind it though:

First, I don't like that there is one bought out every year. The only really other genre to do this are sports games. Games that are bought out yearly are rarely anything of quality. Sure, the Call of Duty games may be good games, but that doesn't change that fact that there is no innovation. It starts of good but over time you just end up buying because you have all the others.

Take the Sims series for example. Sims 1 was fresh. It was original. And then they bought out expansion packs, and they were awesome! There was thought put into them and they made the game so much more fun to play. Then they bought out the Sims 2, and while they changed things, it was pretty much the Sims again. And now, with the Sims 3, they've done nothing new again. There is a reason why Sims 1 sold so much better than say Sims 3.

The same goes for Call of Duty. You bought the first one and enjoyed it. The only reason it's held up slightly better is because 2 studios were working on it as opposed to 1. Honestly, how many times can you kill terrorist before it gets old?

Second, it's generic. There is a reason why it's sold so well: there is nothing unique or interesting about it. At least Halo and Gears of War have sci-fi elements. It doesn't take any risks with what it does or try to make anything different. The only drastic thing I can say they've done is zombies, and that not even an original idea.

Third, and this is a personal one, as someone who's worked in a video games store it is games like Call of Duty that are a reason we don't have an R18 rating in Australia, second only to the Grand Theft Autos. I literally can't tell you just how many underage kids come in and get copies of Call of Duty because 'All my friends have it' or 'I can't not have it'. While that's not a fault of the game itself and more to do with poor parenting, the sheer popularity of it makes parents think it can't be that bad if everyone is playing it.

But that's just me.
 

HarryScull

New member
Apr 26, 2012
225
0
0
Glademaster said:
HarryScull said:
your arguing from a position of ignorance my friend and its just making you look stupid to me
Yes because 1,000 hours 700 of which I can vouch for through xfire on CoDs 2 and 4 and 40 painful hours of BO puts me at a point of ignorance.
you put 40 hours into Blops, i put over 200 hours into it and played competitively...

you can argue that it is bad but not that its not innovative
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
HarryScull said:
9. mw2 had deathstreaks, nooob tubes, guns with lower recoil and stopping power, this made it a much more noob friendly game than Blops
All Call of Duty games are "noob friendly" - a major design goal of the games seems to be to make them very easy for casual players to get into. Hence the auto-aim, hitscan, insta-kill grenade launchers, deathstreaks, killstreaks, and so on.
 

lunavixen

New member
Jan 2, 2012
841
0
0
I dislike call of duty and modern warfare because all of the games have largely been the same, it's just war games that we've all seen before, the "storyline" in single player, and that's a term i'm using generously is weaker than wet toilet paper, i don't play games that don't have a storyline or at the very least bring something new to a long running series (and i'm not talking cosmetic or minor changes)
 
Jun 11, 2008
5,331
0
0
HarryScull said:
Glademaster said:
HarryScull said:
your arguing from a position of ignorance my friend and its just making you look stupid to me
Yes because 1,000 hours 700 of which I can vouch for through xfire on CoDs 2 and 4 and 40 painful hours of BO puts me at a point of ignorance.
you put 40 hours into Blops, i put over 300 hours into it and played competitively...

you can argue that it is bad but not that its not innovative
So I need to play more than 40 hours to realise CoD has stopped innovating? You don't need to play a game for even 10 hours to realise it hasn't changed in any meaningful or good ways. You don't need to play a game competitively either to realise it doesn't innovate. I can argue why I think it is bad but I shouldn't need to argue that the only things it has added to the series are wager match, minor customisation, slightly balanced killstreak mechanics and theatre. Anything else is standard for a new game and is not innovation. Even what is has done since CoD 4 has only been innovation with the series and has not moved forward the genre like CoD 4. Now no one expects every game to do that but I want a bit more out of my FPS than what BO did.