Why has Cod become what it is?

[frobalt]

This Ghost thing we get a Dog, and slightly better graphics then on the xbox 360/PS3. Thats it!

I might be remembering this wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're introducing destruct-able buildings too, or something I don't get.

Although, you do raise a good point about not much changing between games. What is interesting about this is that there are lots of game sequels that do this as well (I'm looking at you nintendo!) which most of the COD-haters are probably fans of.

Seriously though, pokémon games also barely add anything each time, except more pokémon.

 

[masticina]

This Ghost thing we get a Dog, and slightly better graphics then on the xbox 360/PS3. Thats it!

I might be remembering this wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're introducing destruct-able buildings too, or something I don't get.

Although, you do raise a good point about not much changing between games. What is interesting about this is that there are lots of game sequels that do this as well (I'm looking at you nintendo!) which most of the COD-haters are probably fans of.

Seriously though, pokémon games also barely add anything each time, except more pokémon.

Mmm a deflaction, interesting. But yes Pokemon is a series with the same problem. On a few exceptions like lets say Pokemon Black and White that bring out a whole new area, an actual pretty decent story line. It is true that allot is still the very basic addictive catch them all. Yes even pokemon will grind down. I don't feel the need to buy Pokemon X & Y. Sure enough people buy it but as some say.. you begin to lose a few players. Then a few more..and a few more..and a few more. It is a slow process of erosion.

The question is when well this happen to the CoD series. When will it begin to erode!

 

[someonehairy-ish]

This is really my take on it as well. It was more or less responsible, along with Halo, for the dramatic shift of PC FPS games that were actually fun to play, to slow corridor shooters with "cinematic setpieces". At least Rise of the Traid releases at the end of the month.

What? When Halo first came out it was praised specifically because it gave you a wide open space to play with, and didn't railroad you into linear corridors. I remember being amazed when I saw a massive valley and realised that there wasn't a single invisible wall anywhere; I actually was free to explore the whole thing. I know it's a popular thing to rag on Halo but at least make sure your criticisms aren't total fantasy...

CoD gets hated because it had a hand in the industry shift toward yearly sequels and overblown budgets (ironically it doesn't actually have too bloated a budget itself because they get away with reusing so many assets between games). It also inspires a legion of dull clones, and the multiplayer is infamous for having a lot of foul-mouthed racist kids on it. That's why it gets hated so much.
Plus, I think we all know someone who one day disappeared indoors and now spends most of their time posting 360 no-scope videos to youtube. It's a bit difficult not to resent the game for that.

Shame really. The reason CoD got so big in the first place was largely because CoD4 was a genuinely excellent game. Don't sneer - it topped most people's end of year lists. Even yahtzee liked it. I think if the following games had retained that level of quality and not been pumped out so frequently, the franchise would probably still be held in high regard.

 

[SouthernStar]

*Why I didn't say Skyrim? Well, Skyrim became immensely popular and everyone got it, that's why.

Lol sorry to burst your bubble but so did Oblivion.

 

[clippen05]

I don't hate Call of Duty, but I can't say I like what its become. I've been playing since Call of Duty 2 and if you look at it today its nothing similar. I don't like the emphasis on challenges and levelling up rather than on skill. I also hate "Quick-scoping"... but I'm not gonna dwell on that. And... I don't like the community behind it. The last game I legitimately enjoyed was Black Ops 1, but I've bought both Black Ops 2 and Modern Warfare 3. Played the campaigns of both but barely played the multiplayer... it just wasn't clicking for me. Lastly, I don't see what all the fuss is about Nazi Zombies... IMO its really not that great; Killing Floor is 100x times better, but then again, its a standalone game. But with all the treatment Nazi Zombies got in the later Treyarch games, you'd wonder why they just don' make it their own game.

I don't plan on buying Call of Duty Ghosts. I also think I've matured into liking other types of games. (Not saying that FPS's aren't mature, but that my taste in games has changed)

 

[Demonjazz]

Cause nothing happens in the new CoD games, Say what you will about series like Pokemon and Halo, at least they give us some new items, moves, weapons, etc. CoD kind of peaked at what most people said was CoD4 and they just didn't add anything after that but people still buy the new version because that's what everyone else is doing

 

[Phlakes]

This thread itself is actually the best answer to your question. It's as popular as it is because it does things that a lot of people like, and the people who don't like those things especially don't like when those things are popular. So those things keep being done for the people who like them and the people who don't like them dislike them even more for getting more popular.

 

[ron1n]

The sad, now often overlooked fact about call of duty, is that the first game...was amazing.

It was a PC exclusive breath of fresh air, with a SP campaign that though linear was also immersive as hell. Map design was simple but smart and spawned a number of maps such as mp_carentan and mp_dawnville which are right up there with classics like de_dust. Instead of supporting it though, and growing the competitive scene, they instead opted to pump out CoD2, which at the time, was actually looked down on because of crap like health regen. Still a good game though.

Then eventually we got number 4 and the reason I hate the CoD seres: Modern Warfare.

As much as people love all the different guns and gadgets of Modern Warfare, it just doesn't translate to good gameplay for me. WW2 and even Vietnam just had such a great balanced mix of factional guns that made things so much more interesting. Unlike now, where it generally boils down to a 2-3 gun game, just about every gun in CoD 1 and 2 could be used (even in competitive play).

On top of that the extra gadgets and guns and attachment nonsense has completely changed the core motivation of playing an FPS. People play them like they're an MMO now, focused on unlocking crap and bragging about meaningless player levels. And the worst part, is if you took away the progression crap, I don't think people would play it, because that's what they've come to expect of the genre.

Oh and don't even get me started on the cluster-fuck map design now days. Random exploding cars in CoD 4 was bad enough...

CoD is hated because it's effectively the poster child for all the bs that ruined the FPS genre. It's far from the only offender though. Just the most obvious one.

 

[Compatriot Block]

I love how threads about Call of Duty are the only ones where people won't be mocked for being confused that people like it. Half Life, Portal, it's always "Somebody has a different opinion than you? That's impossible! (/SARCASM HAHAHA)"

With CoD it's usually only a handful of posts before someone states "This game is shit" and then the thread sort of loops until it dies.

 

[J Tyran]

It contributes nothing to gaming,

It contributes everything to gaming a game needs to, it contributes a certain amount of entertainment to the people that like to play those games. That is all a game is required to contribute, its all a game needs to contribute. To demand anything more from a piece of entertainment is pretentious, I do not know where this stupid games as "art" crap started but the people responsible should hang their heads in shame.

Some games just like some movies or certain books could be considered to have art in them but its unrealistic and false to expect every single other game to fall down into someones arthole with them, some games are just simple basic entertainment and thats all they need to be.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Never played online multiplayer, but I did some local co-op and I dunno, it's a fun game, pretty standard-issue FPS. I guess people like to demonize a specific thing rather than face their frustrations particularly.

 

[Nazulu]

It contributes nothing to gaming,

It contributes everything to gaming a game needs to, it contributes a certain amount of entertainment to the people that like to play those games. That is all a game is required to contribute, its all a game needs to contribute. To demand anything more from a piece of entertainment is pretentious, I do not know where this stupid games as "art" crap started but the people responsible should hang their heads in shame.

Some games just like some movies or certain books could be considered to have art in them but its unrealistic and false to expect every single other game to fall down into someones arthole with them, some games are just simple basic entertainment and thats all they need to be.

That really shows how low your standards are.

Why can't they do more with it? Why can't they make a massive COD that has everything the others have and more? Why does it have to be pumped out every year with roughly the same problems?

This is where the generic bullshit comes from, this what inspires other publishers to try and compete and it's this type of thinking that lowers the standards of everything. They've found something special after some successful games then proceed to milk it to death instead of using the artists time to try and find other special things. It is a real shame that it usually comes to this now, unlike when films started off there were many trying to find new ways to entertain.

 

[J Tyran]

It contributes nothing to gaming,

It contributes everything to gaming a game needs to, it contributes a certain amount of entertainment to the people that like to play those games. That is all a game is required to contribute, its all a game needs to contribute. To demand anything more from a piece of entertainment is pretentious, I do not know where this stupid games as "art" crap started but the people responsible should hang their heads in shame.

Some games just like some movies or certain books could be considered to have art in them but its unrealistic and false to expect every single other game to fall down into someones arthole with them, some games are just simple basic entertainment and thats all they need to be.

That really shows how low your standards are.

Why can't they do more with it? Why can't they make a massive COD that has everything the others have and more? Why does it have to be pumped out every year with roughly the same problems?

This is where the generic bullshit comes from, this what inspires other publishers to try and compete and it's this type of thinking that lowers the standards of everything. They've found something special after some successful games then proceed to milk it to death instead of using the artists time to try and find other special things. It is a real shame that it usually comes to this now, unlike when films started off there were many trying to find new ways to entertain.

Right, you are making the assumption that innovation = good and generic = bad. This is patently false, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of entertainment taking on tired old tropes and being well... entertaining.

Do not confuse my lack of pretense for low standards, CoD doesn't make the games I like go away so I can comfortably go on ignoring it and puncturing the self absorbed opinions of those that believe developers only have the right to make the games that they like. ARMA still exists, the guys behind the DCS series still exist and complex MMOs like EVE still exist. If people enjoy CoD and find it entertaining thats all it really needs to be.

 

[Nazulu]

It contributes nothing to gaming,

It contributes everything to gaming a game needs to, it contributes a certain amount of entertainment to the people that like to play those games. That is all a game is required to contribute, its all a game needs to contribute. To demand anything more from a piece of entertainment is pretentious, I do not know where this stupid games as "art" crap started but the people responsible should hang their heads in shame.

Some games just like some movies or certain books could be considered to have art in them but its unrealistic and false to expect every single other game to fall down into someones arthole with them, some games are just simple basic entertainment and thats all they need to be.

That really shows how low your standards are.

Why can't they do more with it? Why can't they make a massive COD that has everything the others have and more? Why does it have to be pumped out every year with roughly the same problems?

This is where the generic bullshit comes from, this what inspires other publishers to try and compete and it's this type of thinking that lowers the standards of everything. They've found something special after some successful games then proceed to milk it to death instead of using the artists time to try and find other special things. It is a real shame that it usually comes to this now, unlike when films started off there were many trying to find new ways to entertain.

Right, you are making the assumption that innovation = good and generic = bad. This is patently false, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of entertainment taking on tired old tropes and being well... entertaining.

Do not confuse my lack of pretense for low standards, CoD doesn't make the games I like go away so I can comfortably go on ignoring it and puncturing the self absorbed opinions of those that believe developers only have the right to make the games that they like. ARMA still exists, the guys behind the DCS series still exist and complex MMOs like EVE still exist. If people enjoy CoD and find it entertaining thats all it really needs to be.

And that's where you screw up.

See, that's all you think it needs to be. I don't. I reckon it should try to be more or the developers should try another franchise instead of always recycling like a one trick pony. It's no excuse to say "others have done it to", that's a poor mentality.

This basic criticism your going against here and you're not going to win. If you really think people shouldn't believe it could do more then maybe you should hang your head in shame, because that type of thinking is why we don't see many different/interesting things.

 

[PFCboom]

Anyone here play Game Dev Tycoon? There's a wiki that tells you plainly what it takes to make a successful game, including pretty rigid percentages and algorithms. In short, there's a fairly reliable mathematical "this is a good game" formula.
I like to think that's kinda what Infinity Ward has going on here. They've found a formula that produces reliable results, and they're sticking with it. They have their focuses on AI, graphics and online, combined with AAA bonus, sequel bonus, marketing for hype... the more I think about it, the more I believe my own half-assed hypothesis.

 

[dragongit]

I have never played a CoD game in my life, so I have no opinion on it one way or the other. I do however object to the way it's set a bar for gaming as a whole. Where we need a crap load of military shooters and the desire to get a billion dollars or else it's a flop. I don't hate it, I just hate what it's doing.

 

[J Tyran]

It contributes nothing to gaming,

It contributes everything to gaming a game needs to, it contributes a certain amount of entertainment to the people that like to play those games. That is all a game is required to contribute, its all a game needs to contribute. To demand anything more from a piece of entertainment is pretentious, I do not know where this stupid games as "art" crap started but the people responsible should hang their heads in shame.

Some games just like some movies or certain books could be considered to have art in them but its unrealistic and false to expect every single other game to fall down into someones arthole with them, some games are just simple basic entertainment and thats all they need to be.

That really shows how low your standards are.

Why can't they do more with it? Why can't they make a massive COD that has everything the others have and more? Why does it have to be pumped out every year with roughly the same problems?

This is where the generic bullshit comes from, this what inspires other publishers to try and compete and it's this type of thinking that lowers the standards of everything. They've found something special after some successful games then proceed to milk it to death instead of using the artists time to try and find other special things. It is a real shame that it usually comes to this now, unlike when films started off there were many trying to find new ways to entertain.

Right, you are making the assumption that innovation = good and generic = bad. This is patently false, there are hundreds if not thousands of examples of entertainment taking on tired old tropes and being well... entertaining.

Do not confuse my lack of pretense for low standards, CoD doesn't make the games I like go away so I can comfortably go on ignoring it and puncturing the self absorbed opinions of those that believe developers only have the right to make the games that they like. ARMA still exists, the guys behind the DCS series still exist and complex MMOs like EVE still exist. If people enjoy CoD and find it entertaining thats all it really needs to be.

And that's where you screw up.

See, that's all you think it needs to be. I don't. I reckon it should try to be more or the developers should try another franchise instead of always recycling like a one trick pony. It's no excuse to say "others have done it to", that's a poor mentality.

This basic criticism your going against here and you're not going to win. If you really think people shouldn't believe it could do more then maybe you should hang your head in shame, because that type of thinking is why we don't see many different/interesting things.

Then the fault lies with you, if you do not see interesting or different things then you are either not looking hard enough or looking in the wrong places. That is entirely your own problem and something you need to work through by yourself, don't expect an industry to shape itself to serve your shortcomings.

 

[Nazulu]

Then the fault lies with you, if you do not see interesting or different things then you are either not looking hard enough or looking in the wrong places. That is entirely your own problem and something you need to work through by yourself, don't expect an industry to shape itself to serve your shortcomings.

Oh how I saw this coming a mile away. I was hoping you would be smart enough to avoid that cop out answer, but it always happens.

You are now off topic mate. We are talking about COD remember, and why many people have become sick of it. You started this by saying those who expect more should hang their head in shame, and now you're wondering off saying that other developers should make up for that lack of creativity. It does not work like that no matter much you wish it did. A lot of us see this repetitiveness as a flaw and so it will be pointed out. In other words; Don't expect the people to change themselves or serve your shortcomings.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

People don't love CoD because it's a good game. They love CoD because it's easy to get into and it's a brand name. The advertizement team behind it knows what they're doing. And it's not designed with love as a piece of art. It's designed using a checklist of features with the intention of squeezing as much money as humanly possible out of the widest possible audience. It's an empty, soulless, generic piece of shit.

I don't mean to sound like an asshole... but, with all due respect, who the hell do you think you are that you know why people like the things they like? I enjoy CoD, and you think you know my reasons for enjoying it better than I do? That's about the most egotistical thing I've heard... this week. Are you part of some sort of omnipotent hive-mind that's reading everyone's mind? Because if you are, you have to tell me--that's a law.

I mean... how can you even think like that? I... I just can't wrap my head around that. I don't enjoy playing Madden, but I don't think it's because [Insert ludicrous, borderline conspiracy theory].

And really, saying that it's not designed with love as a piece of art? Really? How do you know that? How could you POSSIBLY know that? Not liking the game is one thing, but insulting the people who pour their heart and soul into it? Really, man?

See, you have ZERO way of knowing whether ANY of the things you've said are true or not; it's all just irrational hatred on your part. And you know what? That's a-okay, but don't pretend that you know the reason why people enjoy it, and don't pretend that you know what motivates its developers. Because you know what? YOU DON'T. And unlike everything you've just said, that's a fact!

Anyway... you wanna know why a vocal minority of people hate CoD? Because it's popular. It really is that simple. People will try to rationalize their hatred by recycling the same old arguments (which, somewhat ironically, is the reason they claim to hate CoD) like "It doesn't innovate" or "It's destroying the industry." Fucking LOL. No. It's not. It's objectively not destroying the industry. And if these people wanna pretend it is, they're gonna need to present more proof than "I have a gut feeling."