COD: Why all the hate?

[Nazulu]

You are being quite aggressive. You are bringing unnecessary hatred to what I wish to be a casual discussion. I am indeed a fanboy of Call of Duty, however I hate the rivalry with Battlefield. It's an embarrassment to gamers as a whole to be stuck in such a childish argument. I understand what's wrong about each game. CoD 4 had unbalanced perks, MW2 had overpowered weaponry. Generalization is not a bad thing. It is a way to discuss a topic without detailed information. Since I was not given something to be specific about, generalization was a rational and correct response. The campaigns are actually quite long, and I must say, many people are playing the franchise for the story. We want to see the story of Price and MacTavish. They play it safe because they don't have to make radical changes to their game. They already have great sales, they don't need to change everything. They don't need to make a bigger CoD, CoD is already big. That's like making a bigger Zelda. It's already big, it already sells well.

I'll show aggressive if you want it so bad.

You can't have a casual discussion if you keep assuming what I feel and generalising everyone you disagree with, you actually have to challenge the complaints. I think you've done that now though.

Just to make sure, I never brought up Battlefield so don't assume I'm one of those people either. I'm sure the Battlefields are not perfect.

Now, A lot of people can beat the campaigns in 5 hours, which isn't very long. Therefore COD can be said to be pretty small, and since they have lots of money they should be easily able to extend it by double. Wouldn't you rather they made a really big game every 3 years with lots of options and what not for a similar price? I know your thinking in the companies best interests, but in my opinion they are getting away with so little on their plate.

Also, when I say to try something different, I don't mean radical changes to COD, I mean a new franchise, or they could experiment.

Now don't let what I just said bother you. Remember, it's just my opinion, and I have tiny little to no power to actually have any effect on their business.

 

[Snoozer]

I don't get why the Game rewards you for beeing in the lead. If your Team sucks you are getting the double punishment with overpowered dogs and helicopters - that kills any competition. Also does the game not mix the teams even if one has 2 more players.
The campaign is just bad, historicaly inaccurate in a mighty dangerous way and feels like cheap American militairy propaganda. Also do they pretty much release release the same game every other year, with zombies ...

Compare it to any valve game or even the old Cod ...
But Cod is just following the new wanna be cool shooter concept, that ruins every fps nowadays. Maybe CS GO will save the day.

 

[Nazulu]

because old first person shooters were better, presented more of a challenge, had at least some focus on making a single player campaign and didn't charge 60 dollars for whats essentially a patch for the multiplayer

How can they be that much more challenging than COD when you have a very hard option that can get you killed in one shot? I can tell you right now, it's bloody difficult.

 

[ninetails593]

You are being quite aggressive. You are bringing unnecessary hatred to what I wish to be a casual discussion. I am indeed a fanboy of Call of Duty, however I hate the rivalry with Battlefield. It's an embarrassment to gamers as a whole to be stuck in such a childish argument. I understand what's wrong about each game. CoD 4 had unbalanced perks, MW2 had overpowered weaponry. Generalization is not a bad thing. It is a way to discuss a topic without detailed information. Since I was not given something to be specific about, generalization was a rational and correct response. The campaigns are actually quite long, and I must say, many people are playing the franchise for the story. We want to see the story of Price and MacTavish. They play it safe because they don't have to make radical changes to their game. They already have great sales, they don't need to change everything. They don't need to make a bigger CoD, CoD is already big. That's like making a bigger Zelda. It's already big, it already sells well.

I'll show aggressive if you want it so bad.

You can't have a casual discussion if you keep assuming what I feel and generalising everyone you disagree with, you actually have to challenge the complaints. I think you've done that now though.

Just to make sure, I never brought up Battlefield so don't assume I'm one of those people either. I'm sure the Battlefields are not perfect.

Now, A lot of people can beat the campaigns in 5 hours, which isn't very long. Therefore COD can be said to be pretty small, and since they have lots of money they should be easily able to extend it by double. Wouldn't you rather they made a really big game every 3 years with lots of options and what not for a similar price? I know your thinking in the companies best interests, but in my opinion they are getting away with so little on their plate.

Also, when I say to try something different, I don't mean radical changes to COD, I mean a new franchise, or they could experiment.

Now don't let what I just said bother you. Remember, it's just my opinion, and I have tiny little to no power to actually have any effect on their business.

Well speedrunners can beat Ocarina of Time in an hour, that doesn't mean it's the length of the game. You don't seem to understand, money isn't a magic growth elixir. If Ubisoft suddenly got double their money, we wouldn't be seeing Assassin's Creed 5, we'd be seeing Assassin's Creed. What would you define as a "bigger game"? And for that matter, if they make a bigger game, why do you say it should be for a similar price? Getting away without putting much on your plate is a good thing. If you're able to stay healthy with a small amount of food, congratulations, you aren't likely to starve to death. Again, they do not need to experiment. They are fine where they are, and where they are is a massive fanbase and a massive wallet. Quite frankly, you could say whatever you want, you could say you're the president of Activision, and I wouldn't care. It's the internet, your opinion is just text on my screen. Your ideas aren't shocking either, they're just ideas.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Total lack of skill.
Short as shit single player.
(Recently) Crap stories.
ZERO innovation.
Breeding ground for the scum of gaming.

And for the record, I don't care for Battlefield much either. I hope gaming can get this whole Realist War Shooter thing out of it's system soon like an inconvenient period on a honeymoon night.

 

[Nazulu]

Well speedrunners can beat Ocarina of Time in an hour, that doesn't mean it's the length of the game. You don't seem to understand, money isn't a magic growth elixir. If Ubisoft suddenly got double their money, we wouldn't be seeing Assassin's Creed 5, we'd be seeing Assassin's Creed. What would you define as a "bigger game"? And for that matter, if they make a bigger game, why do you say it should be for a similar price? Getting away without putting much on your plate is a good thing. If you're able to stay healthy with a small amount of food, congratulations, you aren't likely to starve to death. Again, they do not need to experiment. They are fine where they are, and where they are is a massive fanbase and a massive wallet. Quite frankly, you could say whatever you want, you could say you're the president of Activision, and I wouldn't care. It's the internet, your opinion is just text on my screen. Your ideas aren't shocking either, they're just ideas.

How about your opinion is just your opinion, like I said before. I'm quite aware I'm not going to convince you but this is all just fun for me.

Now, speed runs are different. They are done by highly talented freaks, while I'm saying the average gamer can defeat the game in 5 hours. With more money you can accomplish anything (well, it allows for more). As they say "money makes the world go round". And I mean bigger as more missions and options and whatever springs into our imagination. The games are small and that's why they will continue to receive complaints till the end of time. You telling me it's good for business and that you don't care will not make it go anywhere. Even though a lot of the fanbase isn't looking for anything special (like you), a lot find it just stagnation and fight it so they can't just get away with whatever. That's what a lot of these big businesses want, to get as much money as possible while giving as little to the customer. If it wasn't for anyone complaining you'd probably be getting less for a higher price a while a go.

 

[Vibhor]

because old first person shooters were better, presented more of a challenge, had at least some focus on making a single player campaign and didn't charge 60 dollars for whats essentially a patch for the multiplayer

How can they be that much more challenging than COD when you have a very hard option that can get you killed in one shot? I can tell you right now, it's bloody difficult.

You would be surprised. Challenge doesn't mean that you can die from one shot. Look at the new deus ex, you only take a few shots to die but the game is still pretty easy.

 

[Nazulu]

because old first person shooters were better, presented more of a challenge, had at least some focus on making a single player campaign and didn't charge 60 dollars for whats essentially a patch for the multiplayer

How can they be that much more challenging than COD when you have a very hard option that can get you killed in one shot? I can tell you right now, it's bloody difficult.

You would be surprised. Challenge doesn't mean that you can die from one shot. Look at the new deus ex, you only take a few shots to die but the game is still pretty easy.

Fair enough, but there are missions I think in all the COD's where you'll have to run a stretch in front of enemy fire and it can be very painful. I can't even beat COD 4 on the last difficulty which is the one I played recently. Then again, I am your average gamer, I'm not great at any game, but I still think it's a very thin line in comparison to the past.

 

[Sectan]

I have fun with CoD games. It's just that people get annoyed with paying 60 USD every year for what basically amounts to a free TF2 update. IE new weapons and new maps.

 

[Crazedc00k]

Most likely because it refuses to innovate; hence it becomes stagnant.

Don't worry, that's its job. The guy in charge can't change for fear of alienating too many of his supporters. One day, Call of Duty will run through its popularity, and we'll have to complain about a different series. One thing I don't get. Why do people complain about there being a surge of samey first person shooters? I hear complaints about that all the time, but outside of the yearly giants from EA and Activisn., the only major "grey gritty grimey" type shooters I can think of are homefront and breach.

 

[Vault101]

*sigh* ok I dont hate COD, its fine for what it is, probably good, just not my thing..so it gets a great big "meh" from me

the only thing that bothers me is its pretty much a re-skin ever new game..the same thing over and over though somwhat tweaked

and then you get "reactionary" stuff like this thread (why do you hate it it? its not abd game...well duh you dont need a thread to say that), and people saying "you hate it because its popular!!!" and it just turns into one great big clusterfuck

 

[Vault101]

Most likely because it refuses to innovate; hence it becomes stagnant.

Don't worry, that's its job. The guy in charge can't change for fear of alienating too many of his supporters. One day, Call of Duty will run through its popularity, and we'll have to complain about a different series. One thing I don't get. Why do people complain about there being a surge of samey first person shooters? I hear complaints about that all the time, but outside of the yearly giants from EA and Activisn., the only major "grey gritty grimey" type shooters I can think of are homefront and breach.

I know right? I think this trend is getting a ltitle less...though some people would have you belive its som epidemic

Ive been gaming for at least a year....Ive only played 2 generic brown FPS and NONE this year

 

[samfergo]

Another brilliant reason behind why CoD has so much hate towards it is that an extremely high percentage of fan boys for it a complete idiots. Its quite easy to see with their lack of intelligent arguements. It always comes down to the same few statement's on their part, the simple "CoD is better" and just repeating that or the same thing and also stating its better than another game. Or if their extra smart for a CoD fan boy they bring up that their is millions of other people out their just as dumb as them.

Personally I prefer Battlefield or Halo as an FPS, due to the much more varied gameplay. Its generally far more interesting than CoD gameplay. I mean look at Rooster Teeth's fails of the week for Halo, you don't get anything as humorous as that in CoD.

 

[Woodsey]

I'm not one to normally shout "search bar!", but shut up and use the search bar. There must be one of these every day now.

It's since Call of Duty is so popular. People on the internet like to make themselves feel special by saying they hate it. I don't blame them, it's in their nature to be horrible.

More popular -> more people have played it -> more people will complain about it.

And let's just not get started on your "they all complain about the same five things so obviously they're just saying shit for the sake of it" logic, or else I'll be putting a hammer through my own skull.

 

[Violator[xL]]

Because this type of threads! Man oh man!

 

[luke10123]

Clearly there's a lot of folk posting who arn't fans, but it has to be asked of these people:

"Why all the hate?"

HATE?

Is it just me who thinks this is a REALLY stong word to associate with a video game you don't particularly enjoy? Can't people just remain indifferent, if you don't want to, don't buy MW3, there's no need to run around the internet bashing the people who do. does no one else see down and out hatred as being a problem? and we wonder why most people think all gamers are immature juveniles...

Personally, I like both games for what they are, but BF3 requires more of a time investment than I can give, so for now I'm going to enjoy the more arcade-y style of CoD until I can really settle down and enjoy Battlefield 3. (assuming i forgive every battlefield title since BF2, none of them have really 'done it' for me)

 

[ninetails593]

More popular -> more people have played it -> more people will complain about it.

And let's just not get started on your "they all complain about the same five things so obviously they're just saying shit for the sake of it" logic, or else I'll be putting a hammer through my own skull.

Did I say that? My point was that the complaints had gotten generic, or did you bother to read the context? I never asked for this aggression.

How about your opinion is just your opinion, like I said before. I'm quite aware I'm not going to convince you but this is all just fun for me.

Now, speed runs are different. They are done by highly talented freaks, while I'm saying the average gamer can defeat the game in 5 hours. With more money you can accomplish anything (well, it allows for more). As they say "money makes the world go round". And I mean bigger as more missions and options and whatever springs into our imagination. The games are small and that's why they will continue to receive complaints till the end of time. You telling me it's good for business and that you don't care will not make it go anywhere. Even though a lot of the fanbase isn't looking for anything special (like you), a lot find it just stagnation and fight it so they can't just get away with whatever. That's what a lot of these big businesses want, to get as much money as possible while giving as little to the customer. If it wasn't for anyone complaining you'd probably be getting less for a higher price a while a go.

The length is around 4-8 hours. The game isn't a free roam! You can't just add in missions! Each mission is important to the plot and timeline. The games are large, prove me wrong. The fanbase is looking for a lot special. Like for instance, I'm looking forward to the new features, the strike packages, game modes, story lines, gun levels, point streaks... There's quite a bit to be excited about. The customer doesn't deserve anything. The customer can either buy their product, or not. The opinion of a random person is NOT the responsibility of the developers. The people complaining aren't a factor. The people that actually played the game and brought up points about its faults are a factor. You know what those people are called? Experienced. As in: Not people that decided CoD sucks and left it at that.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Hey, it's that thread again... No idea why I keep coming back...

OT: For me, I hate it for what it represents. A dead end. It's just releasing the same gameplay, same weapons, same everything with such bare updates that you could fit in a patch, then have the guts to charge full price for the game and then even more for the 11 million map packs they sell and now they charge for bloody stats tracking? Something that's been free for every other online shooter?

That and plus it commits the cardinal sin of gaming, it's boring, least to me.

The business strategy is fucked, the community is fucked. there really isn't anything for me to like about it and it's damaging gaming as a whole for it racking up such a ridiculous income with it's extorting business strategy and yearly releases, other game developers and publishers might seek to adopt that strategy of business and copy it's gameplay.

So I'll summarize MY view on the game, it's boring, the community sucks, the story is incoherent and ironically simple, the multiplayer is broken, the graphics are very dated and Activision don't give a crap about the consumer or the game, they just want their money. Obviously, this is just my opinion but at least this bit of wall-o-text will explain some of the reasons there is a general dislike of call of duty.

[sub]Can we not have this thread pop up tomorrow? Please...[/sub]

 

[Charles McGuffin]

Because it's popular and now every other FPS tries to be just as stupid.

 

[Woodsey]

More popular -> more people have played it -> more people will complain about it.

And let's just not get started on your "they all complain about the same five things so obviously they're just saying shit for the sake of it" logic, or else I'll be putting a hammer through my own skull.

Did I say that? My point was that the complaints had gotten generic, or did you bother to read the context? I never asked for this aggression.

"People on the internet like to make themselves feel special by saying they hate it. I don't blame them, it's in their nature to be horrible."

"Also, it's hard not to generalize when every argument against Call of Duty is: "Graphics same, too much money, too frequent, too similar". When the complaints start getting unique, I'll stop generalizing fanboys."

So yes, you did say that. The complaints haven't gotten generic, those are the complaints. Saying the complaints are generic also implies you think people are simply parroting each other and that the complaints hold no merit. So, again, yes you did say that.

(And a reply is not "aggression" - you said that to the last guy who quoted you who wasn't aggressive in the slightest.)