I am sure various reasons depending on the person of course... Me I don't like the game cause I didn't like how it played, I don't hate it just not my thing is all but to each their own.Now what I do hate is how companies seems to want to just focus on these style of games not saying all do of course and kind of floods the market with them
I hate to be the guy, but why the hate for COD?
- Thread starter Dr Jones
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I've played every Infinity Ward COD Game, Black Ops and Modern Warfare 2. I plan to buy Modern Warfare 3.
So, who cares that other people don't like it? More for me.
So, who cares that other people don't like it? More for me.
I find the multiplayer insufferable, and the singleplayer is usually so short it barely merits a notice sign. Doesn't help that some of the fans are absolute twats.
I liked MW2. And I'm not spending any more money on the franchise till Infinity Ward gets back in the driver's seat.
i actually started hating the series after i got my first prestige in black ops. i felt no sense of accomplishment and now i start leveling all over.
but now, i'm trying to make my little pony cutie marks using the playercard editor thing and i'm obsessively playing multiplayer again to get COD points!
so i guess the reason people hate the COD series is because they don't watch my little pony. quite simple really, a sound and irrefutable conclusion.
but now, i'm trying to make my little pony cutie marks using the playercard editor thing and i'm obsessively playing multiplayer again to get COD points!
so i guess the reason people hate the COD series is because they don't watch my little pony. quite simple really, a sound and irrefutable conclusion.
I don't dislike it... if fact, I really enjoy to play it every once in a while. I just tend to side with the "haters" of the game, because I think it's really overrated. It's a good game, but now they are starting to blend together. And not to mention there are more games out now that deserve the attention, in my opinion, more than CoD. I'm glad all the hype is starting to wind down for it. Like I said, I really enjoy the game... but I guess I subconsciously try not to, to counterbalance all its popularity.
I'm getting ready for work and can't read through all the pages, but from what I see as the average gamer and internet user, the #1 problem would have to be: the fanbase.Dr Jones said:
Yes, that's the stem of the problem, almost everything else comes from there. But that's BECAUSE the game is good and attracts so many fans. The screechy pre-teens included, that seem to cop a lot of hate these days (can't say myself, haven't played much multiplayer except with my friends, whom many are dads or married).
The other problem is the balance. Which sucks, yes, but would hardly be an issue if it weren't for the fanbase to *notice* it. There are many more games out there with worse balance, but don't get knocked on for it because there aren't enough fans to hate it.
The final one I see, which happens to be because I watch a lot of clips about firearms on youtube, is that the players seem to think CoD is somehow "realistic", and therefore can learn about weapons from playing it, much to the dismay to "real steel" enthusiasts who have to put up with wild inaccuracies put up by the kids who play it, thinking they are suddenly very smart.
Like I said, they all stem from the large fanbase. Take it as you will. My theory attributes it to why so many people hate Metallica (well, in Australia anyways) back in the day.
I hate Activision for it's business practice of making a game every year with little to no inovation to capitalize on a game's popularity. The millions of people buying CoD tells developers of other games "This is what we want" so they make their games more like CoD in whatever way they can.
Call of Duty post CoD4 is a result of this business practice. In fact, Activision's "vision" of Call of Duty pre CoD4 shows you a prefect example of what I'm talking about. They didn't want to let Infinity Ward make a Modern Warfare game because WWII games were making so much money. In their attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Call of Duty: Finest Hour, they were willing to make WWII FPS over and over again.
And so history repeats itself. Where WWII shooters in the past became stagnate and people grew tired of the Medal of Honor series, people now begin to grow tired of Call of Duty and soon there will probably be a new shooter to come out to overtake the throne for most popular and it too will become stagnate and boring. I'm not sure if Halo fits in this equation or not since non-Xbox/PC gamers never played it anyway.
So to answer the question directly, I don't hate CoD. I hate Activision. My have for Activision translates to every game released by them I feel is overrated/over hyped/not good. I liked Call of Duty 2 and 4 alright, but just like anyone would not like a game they thought wasn't good, I thought all of Treyarch's Call of Dutys and Modern Warfare 2 were boring and all around not very good. Prototype was also unbelievabley bad. It's just people's preference. Just like how you don't ask "Why all the hate for Xbox 360/PS3"
Call of Duty post CoD4 is a result of this business practice. In fact, Activision's "vision" of Call of Duty pre CoD4 shows you a prefect example of what I'm talking about. They didn't want to let Infinity Ward make a Modern Warfare game because WWII games were making so much money. In their attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Call of Duty: Finest Hour, they were willing to make WWII FPS over and over again.
And so history repeats itself. Where WWII shooters in the past became stagnate and people grew tired of the Medal of Honor series, people now begin to grow tired of Call of Duty and soon there will probably be a new shooter to come out to overtake the throne for most popular and it too will become stagnate and boring. I'm not sure if Halo fits in this equation or not since non-Xbox/PC gamers never played it anyway.
So to answer the question directly, I don't hate CoD. I hate Activision. My have for Activision translates to every game released by them I feel is overrated/over hyped/not good. I liked Call of Duty 2 and 4 alright, but just like anyone would not like a game they thought wasn't good, I thought all of Treyarch's Call of Dutys and Modern Warfare 2 were boring and all around not very good. Prototype was also unbelievabley bad. It's just people's preference. Just like how you don't ask "Why all the hate for Xbox 360/PS3"
I've seen the multiplayer of at least 3 of them (including MW3 in a trailer), and it's ALWAYS the same: look down the barrel of a big gun, watch the camera jerk, bullets fly out at your target, he dies in a few seconds, and a number around 100 popping up over his head.Dr Jones said:
I like the game, but I hate the people. I swear there is a legion of cheap horrible people that I pkay against daily. Thats my reason, and the best.
As for it being unorigional and stuff...well, I dont believe people who say they want new stuff.
As for it being unorigional and stuff...well, I dont believe people who say they want new stuff.
Popularity earns resentment. I do what I can to ignore the popularity of something and judge it by its actual merit. Still don't like Glee, though. Just a bunch of stupid kids singing.
The problem I've had with Call of Duty was when World at War came out. I really liked Modern Warfare, but WaW felt stale. By the time Modern Warfare 2 came out, CoD's multiplayer didn't feel fresh to me anymore. And Modern Warfare 2's campaign was straight junk. I kind of like Black Ops, just not enough to commit to its multiplayer over Halo.
The problem I've had with Call of Duty was when World at War came out. I really liked Modern Warfare, but WaW felt stale. By the time Modern Warfare 2 came out, CoD's multiplayer didn't feel fresh to me anymore. And Modern Warfare 2's campaign was straight junk. I kind of like Black Ops, just not enough to commit to its multiplayer over Halo.
I dislike the recent CoD series for failing to innovate or push the envelope. CoD4: MW tried to push things by making the effects of nuclear devestation personal, filling the gaping hole of a modern shooter when we were mostly getting handed scifi and WW2 shooters, and introducing moderate elements of stealth and destruction into a multiplayer setting. While stealth and destruction were around before, this was kinda the first to give you the chance to hide somewhat in the open or to put bullets through walls.
And then CoD went backwards.
Now I like how CoD is handling zombies now. Nazi zombies was a great way to pal around with friends... at least in WaW. I'm interested in trying the new Romero directed bit too. But BOps' Nazi zombies can piss off. I tried to pick up the rifle to conserve ammo with head shots, and the game actually blurs the iron sights to make then hard to aim at. You can check this yourself; it's not even well hidden since the blur spot is larger than the iron ring itself. This means the game devs have gone out of their way to artificially increase the difficulty of a certain play style rather than say... make the damn game work with it. Just have their heads loll a bit. Then the zombies could have a logical reason to be hard to head shot rather than a lazy and stupid one. But that would require work, now, wouldn't it?
Finally, I reject the notion that h they've been continuously upgrading because frankly BOps looks close to and if not worse than MW1, and doesn't include puncturable walls. This isn't moving forward or even staying in the same spot. It's moving backward.
But for all this I only dislike the games. What angers me is that CoD is stupidly profitable anyway. Lazy, sloppy work should not be rewarded but it is. And there are so many shooters than deserve a shot at being the best. In Battlefield: Bad Company 2, damn near everything can be destroyed. They decided to make their niche the destruction engine and it works for them. There really is nothing like crushing your foes with a collapsing building. And vehicles are a staple of the game rather than a reward, which means the methods for handling them are also common.
Or MAG which, while honestly not that great of a shooter in terms of guns (it kind of feels like paintball), can fit insane numbers of players into a single match. In some cases 128 people on four teams. And tactics really do help here, unlikely CoD's freshest multiplayer.
Frankly, my only complaint is that a lot of devs are playing safe instead of trying to show us what games can do. And while everyone shares the chain they're hancuffed to, CoD is a big part of the rock holding them back.
Now someone go get me some fish and chips. All this cod talk has gotten me hungry.
And then CoD went backwards.
Now I like how CoD is handling zombies now. Nazi zombies was a great way to pal around with friends... at least in WaW. I'm interested in trying the new Romero directed bit too. But BOps' Nazi zombies can piss off. I tried to pick up the rifle to conserve ammo with head shots, and the game actually blurs the iron sights to make then hard to aim at. You can check this yourself; it's not even well hidden since the blur spot is larger than the iron ring itself. This means the game devs have gone out of their way to artificially increase the difficulty of a certain play style rather than say... make the damn game work with it. Just have their heads loll a bit. Then the zombies could have a logical reason to be hard to head shot rather than a lazy and stupid one. But that would require work, now, wouldn't it?
Finally, I reject the notion that h they've been continuously upgrading because frankly BOps looks close to and if not worse than MW1, and doesn't include puncturable walls. This isn't moving forward or even staying in the same spot. It's moving backward.
But for all this I only dislike the games. What angers me is that CoD is stupidly profitable anyway. Lazy, sloppy work should not be rewarded but it is. And there are so many shooters than deserve a shot at being the best. In Battlefield: Bad Company 2, damn near everything can be destroyed. They decided to make their niche the destruction engine and it works for them. There really is nothing like crushing your foes with a collapsing building. And vehicles are a staple of the game rather than a reward, which means the methods for handling them are also common.
Or MAG which, while honestly not that great of a shooter in terms of guns (it kind of feels like paintball), can fit insane numbers of players into a single match. In some cases 128 people on four teams. And tactics really do help here, unlikely CoD's freshest multiplayer.
Frankly, my only complaint is that a lot of devs are playing safe instead of trying to show us what games can do. And while everyone shares the chain they're hancuffed to, CoD is a big part of the rock holding them back.
Now someone go get me some fish and chips. All this cod talk has gotten me hungry.
For me, I need a little Fantasic in my Fantasy y'know? "Real" war games are mostly boring so I need something like Wolfenstein or Borderlands or yeah, Fallout or Mass Effect to get my FPS on. CoD has the same problem all "real" war games have with me. Too realistic. What? No Ninjas, Pirates, Wizards, Huge *^&%in' Robots or Superheroes? = Pass.Dr Jones said:
I mean no offense to the series, to sell so well surely they're doing something most gamers like.
Just not this gamer....
Because of the lack of appropriate pacing, the ludicrous story (After Modern Warfare 1), the setting in stone of the cover based, iron sight aiming, health regenerating, shooting gallery memory test mechanic that seems to be pervasive in FPS at the moment.
I liked MW1. It was different enough from everything else to be interesting, but it did wear itself out pretty quickly.
FPS should be about exploration, or cool looking monsters, and set pieces. Not stopping for shooting gallery 52, moving on, then shooting gallery 53, all the while viewing everything through night vision goggles and the splatter of your own blood that's all over the screen.
Am i the only one to have my immersion broken by being shot every time I move forward five feet?
But then I don't play online multiplayer so maybe I'm missing the point.
I liked MW1. It was different enough from everything else to be interesting, but it did wear itself out pretty quickly.
FPS should be about exploration, or cool looking monsters, and set pieces. Not stopping for shooting gallery 52, moving on, then shooting gallery 53, all the while viewing everything through night vision goggles and the splatter of your own blood that's all over the screen.
Am i the only one to have my immersion broken by being shot every time I move forward five feet?
But then I don't play online multiplayer so maybe I'm missing the point.
I play a lot of Black Ops, and played MW2 before it, and while I always enjoyed myself and thought the multiplayer was well-designed and implemented, there were and still are definite balance issues which, when repeated for three, soon-to-be four games, time and time again, it starts to grate.
There are two other reasons I think people hate on the series: It's not a very cerebral experience, and I think there tends to be an attitude that people want a little brains with their games these days. If you look at the old Battlefield games, they were fast paced but there was a lot of strategic thinking going on within the game. The new Bad Company games seek to streamline things with smaller maps, smaller teams and overlap between roles, but there's still strategy and cooperation going on. When you look at all the top selling games, I think it's easy to equate twitch gameplay with casual players and in hardcore communities, the casual players automatically draw ire.
The other reason I think is that people see the developers just doing the same game again and again and, while it's definitely good, they wish those developers would use their considerable talent to make something different; to give us a different experience.
There are two other reasons I think people hate on the series: It's not a very cerebral experience, and I think there tends to be an attitude that people want a little brains with their games these days. If you look at the old Battlefield games, they were fast paced but there was a lot of strategic thinking going on within the game. The new Bad Company games seek to streamline things with smaller maps, smaller teams and overlap between roles, but there's still strategy and cooperation going on. When you look at all the top selling games, I think it's easy to equate twitch gameplay with casual players and in hardcore communities, the casual players automatically draw ire.
The other reason I think is that people see the developers just doing the same game again and again and, while it's definitely good, they wish those developers would use their considerable talent to make something different; to give us a different experience.
for me its annoying how i personally dont like cod(anymore). But all my friends want to play it. We all used to love halo and played it together.
I can only speak for myself, but I dislike the series because every time I played it, I was bored senseless. I played it back when it was one of the tons of generic WW2 shooters and it was dull and bland. Then I tried it again with Modern Warfare 2 and found a single player campaign that felt like it was designed by a 12-year old with severe ADD. I don't care about its popularity, all I know is that whenever I play CoD, I don't have any fun and the whole thing feels like poop. Hence, my dislike.
