Jimquisition: Defending Call of Duty

[Kyogissun]

I'm just going to post a couple of what I feel are my legitimate beefs with the series. Do I hate the series as a whole? Fuuuuuuuuuuck no. Do I 'not care for it'? Yes. So, onward:

-I'm not a fan of the lone wolf focus on multiplayer, even in team based games, it's just a case of 'everyone' getting points and winning instead of just one person. I'm not saying teamwork is non-existent, but it's been made clear a solo approach to gameplay is always an option...

-The 'bad' community it generates/harbors for online gaming in general, the racial/sexual/idiotic slur spewing, top of the lungs screaming, completely hostile to every other users, unwilling to accept any negative or positive commentary tweens/teenagers/young adults who proceed to flood into other games and play with the same mindset in call of duty. BECAUSE of the game's accessbility, it results in just one too many otherwise mentally unhealthy people to flood the online airwaves with their hatred and rage, ruining what would otherwise be a fun time for other people. It's not that CoD's the only series guilty of it, but it just happens to be the biggest 'magnet' for these kinds of people.

-The lack of general 'variety' in gameplay for the multiplayer... The Single Player provides an otherwise nifty thrill ride of action in the CoD games, but multiplayer rarely extends outside of 'shoot the enemy to win' rather than 'apply various tactics' to win. Perhaps, at best, knowledge of the map and properly employing positioning and placement within the map is something used well in the CoD games, but the lack of vehicles, 'large' maps, natural resources and again, lack of focus on teamplay, just results in a somewhat 'weaker' and less engaging multiplayer experience. There's bonding to be had between a group of friends playing the game, but I feel you have to go elsewhere to feel a genuine sense of satisfaction in the overall effort from a team effort

-And last but not least, Call of Duty has sort of become a front runner for 'this is a video game' when people outside the gaming industry 'think' or 'see' or 'hear' about what a video game is. Because of its popularity and install base, it results in so many people believing that CoD is all there is to gaming that CoD only players themselves 'scoff' at the idea of playing anything else or non-gamers look at gamers with the judgement of 'Oh, video games, you mean those violent war shooting things that my 13 year old plays?'

For things that CoD does right, there's a list with just enough things to point out its problems. Like most games out there, it is not a flawless gem. To the credit of Jim though, he did reinforce what is good about the series...

...And I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the 'ride' that Modern Warfare 1 and 2 provided. I'm hoping maybe there will be a remotely similar experience, if not a better one, in MW3 that I can tackle the single player... And move on and never touch the game again.

 

[Still Life]

Because they're one of the companies that HAS the money and trust to truly innovate, but they don't. Thus reinforcing the 'Only games like CoD (as it is now) sell' idea among shareholders. If they bothered to try be a little more creative, I have no doubt that a lot more risks would be accepted by them.

I can see both sides of the argument here.

Undeniably, COD is Activision's flagship cash cow. Having said that, I don't think a developer should be forced to 'innovate' for the sake of innovation.

Bioware specifically said that they wanted CoDs audience. They went after them, instead of sticking with the loyal fanbase they had built up.

I think every developer wants a 'COD' audience. All that money makes bringing Game ideas to life easier. A COD audience is also very diverse, passionate and accessible: these are good things for any franchise. Never mind the assholes, there are a lot of cool people in the COD community.

I can't speak for DA2, I never really followed its development. For ME, Bioware have stated that its shooter elements will inevitably be compared to the best shooters on the market, therefore they wish to polish it up to par. This does not infer making the experience derivative of COD.

tl;dr People try and copy CoD, and ignore their main demographic and make a poorer product. True most of the blame lies with those developers for playing follow the leader, but CoD isn't exactly known for its innovation either.

DA2 has none of the appeal of COD. The general consensus with DA2 is that they tried to fix the issues DA1 had, but went about it the wrong way and were rushed.

 

[Uber Waddles]

*sigh*

So far, Ive pretty much just seen people hating on Jim Sterling because he's a person who doesnt jump on the "Games have to be art" hipster trend, and evaluates things realistically. Just like movies, some people dont enjoy entertainment for their story purposes. Some people, and this may shock some of you, play games for their GAMEPLAY. Shocking new premise, I know. But it's totally true.

And Call Of Duty being a popular franchise, therefore it doesnt need defending? Obviously you've never discussed Call of Duty on the Escapist and other high-brow gaming communities. If you openly admit to liking CoD, you get mocked. Go to any gaming forum. So, while it is popular, people who enjoy it are told they are shrieking teenagers, and looked down on. If its not sophisticated, then people who enjoy it arent either is the mentality.

Do I like story games? Yes. But I dont need a game where story and gameplay go hand in hand, or like LA Noire, where gameplay is shot in the face for story.

I play games for fun. Gameplay above all else. I dont like CoD's shooting, Im a Halo fan myself, but its still pretty much the same concept. "Halo is mainstream, therefore its bad". Makes me want to throw things at people.

Not a single person here has really refuted what Jim said, other than by personally attacking him, or saying "You dont need to protect CoD, its popular". If you dont like his show, then go watch Extra Credits over analyze Tetris. Instead of posting, week after week, how bad his show is, and his ideas are

 

[DefinitelyPsychotic]

This guy's videos are so awesome! Looking forward to the next one, Jim!

 

[darkcommanderq]

The reason COD is annoying is because games like battlefield present warfair so much better.
Reasons why COD is bad

1: RANDOM SPAWNING, this has to be the single biggest problem in FPS games set in a historic / present day theme. Soldiers on the battlefield do not pop up out of thin air. they are deployed, garrisoned, in other words they start at arbitrary point A, and other soldiers start at arbitrary point B. What im getting at is all modern conflicts are team based and deploy troops to locations.

2: MAP SIZE, maps in FPSs on the 360 are small, and I understand that this is due to limitations of the 360 itself. When you have a small map, the problems that arise are location specific camping. this is clever the 1st few times some one does it, and its true that in modern situations soldiers try to gain the advantage with terrain. The problem is that some of the choke points on COD sized maps make it futile to push though, when in a larger map you could put pressure else where to force the campers to move. This ties into problem 3...

3: DEATH MATCH, this is not so much a problem with COH as it is with FPS in general. Death match, while fun, is a rather pointless mode. It alright in Halo, and less realistic shooters because they are not grounded in reality. The problem in death match with the COD is that it makes no damn sense. Armies do not just try to wipe each other out, they try to control territory. Objective based FPS is superior to death match because it requires team work, and allows people to participate that are not the best twitch flex gamers. this is why capture the flag modes are soooo damn fun in any FPS. Dont get me wrong, Death Match is enjoyable and should still be in every FPS, but as far as match making and ranked ladders, Team Based Objective games should be the primary indicator of player skill.

What happens when you fix all of these issues? You get teams that spawn in a designated base with a clear set of objectives to capture and hold territory while fighting against opponents with the exact same goal. The maps are also large enough that its possible to camp AN objective, but not possible to camp the whole map. Also this allows for vechical play.

This allows for more types of people to play the game. The hardcore FPS players with lighting fast reflexes are still important, however players that are better at stratigic thinking can choose how to place said, twitch flex gamers. as well as commander level players can create custom objectives and engage in chess like battles with rival commanders. This is the apex of what a good FPS should be.

Mabye you think this is just an opinion, and to some extent it is. But answer me this truthfully, which do you get more satisfaction from.

Working as a Team in a complex and dynamic situation to accomplish a goal. (like CTF), and knowing that even though you were not the 'star' of the show, your presence helped achieve something that would have been impossible alone.
OR
Head shooting people as they spawn from behind a staircase.

If you think the choice is to much of a loaded question, then feel free to state something you feel you get more accomplishment out of in a death match than the above CTF example.

 

[dantoddd]

Bioware specifically said that they wanted CoDs audience. They went after them, instead of sticking with the loyal fanbase they had built up. That, along with their excuse for a head writer saying this:

Spoiler

it seems like every conversation on the internet gravitates towards DA:2 being a sellout. I'm a little tired of this. I know some people are pissed off that DA:2 wasn't baldur's gate 2.76354, but such is life.

tl;dr People try and copy CoD, and ignore their main demographic and make a poorer product. True most of the blame lies with those developers for playing follow the leader, but CoD isn't exactly known for its innovation either.

precisely. let's face it. everything we have ever seen in the single player of every CoD & MoH game can at the very least be traced back Medal of honor allied assault. If you ask me nothing has changed in the last decade when it has come to these game. they all play the same, feel the the same(atmosphere wise) & sound the same. The only thing that has changed are the graphics and resultant size of explosions.

 

[fgdfgdgd]

He seems awfully but sore over this.

butthurt** Lrn2internet.

You're defending CoD on the Escapist, one of the most sequel-phobic, anti-mainstream, "popular is bad (Unless it's Valve)", indie-snobby sites on the internet... that takes balls.

It kind of comes across when you read the forum rules and it says at a part that they're, and I quote: "The Escapist forums are different from other forums on the internet. We try to maintain a system that balances intelligent discussion, debate and fun."

Wanna be a little more hipster and start penalising people that post elsewhere?

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

COD is not hated for being "popular", and those that don't like it aren't all grouped into the same pretentious camp. Most COD-haters used to BE COD-lovers, but the game was diluted, diminished, and ultimately ruined from iteration to iteration.

"Call of Duty" is currently the most popular shooting game, and possibly franchise, in the world, and I struggle to see why it NEEDS "defending". There are so many games that need awareness, defense, and discussion, ranging from the artistic merits of L.A. Noire, to the untapped potential of the Enslaved franchise, to the jarring changes made to Dragon Age 2, to the bold originality of Mirror's Edge, to the emotional resonance of Okami, Limbo, Silent Hill, ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, Beyond Good & Evil, Psychonauts, and even games as brilliant yet divisive as Brutal Legend, Assassin's Creed, Bayonetta, Deadly Premonition, and Castlevania: Lords of Shadow.

The merits of those games are worthy of discussion, debate, focus, awareness, and consensus.

Just want to say that is beautifully worded and I support this idea 100%.

I second this notion.

 

[GoddyofAus]

Anybody who says their hatred for Activision doesn't contribute significantly towards their hating on COD is a flat out liar.

 

[ALX-00]

"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is a game which defined what a modern multiplayer shooter could be".

Wrong, that would be Team Fortress 2.

Jim is doing a great job of embarrassing himself. He didn't acknowledge any od the main reasons people tend to dislike COD.

Boring environments.
No innovative mechanics.
No teamwork

etc...

Look at any professional or even just a Gamebattles game. There is your teamwork.

As for TF2 being what defined what a MP shooter could be, I have to disagree with you. I don't think CoD has either but TF2 certainly hasn't. Sure it may be a great game but it isn't amazing, it is far from what could be the best. The best game would have to appeal the everybody, both CoD and TF2 cannot do this. Honestly, if every game tried to be like TF2, I couldn't play shooters as they would get boring, just as CoD clones are becoming boring.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

"Those artsy types who need a story with a message"
What a quote.

I just watch these videos because I am a filthy masochist.

I DON'T GET IT! Call of Duty, for the most part, has HAD a message! Not particularly deep, but sentiments like "history is written by the victor" aren't exactly stupid. I dare say Call of Duty 4 has the most subtle yet brilliant anti-nuke statement in the whole of modern multimedia!

Problem with this video is that it assumes people assume. People who hate Call of Duty don't so much hate it because it's popular, but because it's sub-par and popular. True, there does exist a crowd of "elitist douchebags" and a fair few have no point, but a lot of just normal people who crave quality experiences get the short end of the stick here because it's assumed people who hate CoD are "arsty".

I do like Jim. But he really needs to be... less like Michael Moore.

"Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is a game which defined what a modern multiplayer shooter could be".

Wrong, that would be Team Fortress 2.

Jim is doing a great job of embarrassing himself. He didn't acknowledge any od the main reasons people tend to dislike COD.

Boring environments.
No innovative mechanics.
No teamwork

etc...

Look at any professional or even just a Gamebattles game. There is your teamwork.

As for TF2 being what defined what a MP shooter could be, I have to disagree with you. I don't think CoD has either but TF2 certainly hasn't. Sure it may be a great game but it isn't amazing, it is far from what could be the best. The best game would have to appeal the everybody, both CoD and TF2 cannot do this. Honestly, if every game tried to be like TF2, I couldn't play shooters as they would get boring, just as CoD clones are becoming boring.

I love TF2, but I agree. The original Team Fortress was more innovative on release than TF2 was, though TF2 certainly made it a hell of a lot more accessible, I'll give you that.

 

[Vrex360]

If this defense applied to Call of Duty can also be applied to Halo, then I agree and understand the way you must feel about this whole thing, Jim.

That said, while I agree with you this one time... I'm still not quite ready to forgive you for some of the stuff you've said towards women in your articles. Just putting it out there.

 

[neon_samurai]

You won me over Jim Im liking the show.

 

[Narrentod]

Hey there!

I will take this controversial topic as the opportunity for my first post. I ain't the biggest fan of Call of Duty though I enjoyed CoD1-6 (up to MW2), but refused to buy BlOps. Why? Because as a collector and pc gamer I felt kind of betrayed due to there being no CE for the PC. Additionally the overpriced map pack and the decreasing length of single player campaign are other factors that deter me from investing my precious money in overpriced addons (come on, a few new maps, a 4 hour campaign and a few new weapons, that's not more than an addon in volume - and then you also have to buy a once again overpriced map-pack to even play the old maps...).

I don't say CoD is bad or anything, I thoroughly enjoyed things like the sniper part in MW1 and won't forget it any time soon, but the pricing, the release politics, the no dedicated server MW2 fuck up and similar problems that don't necessarily make the series terribad, impact my decision to stay away and rather buy BF3 than MW3.

greetz
Chris

 

[norwegian-guy]

While not very subtly put, I completely agree with what he's saying. People will always be hating on what's popular, because that's what the 'cool kids' do, but a bit of sense seldom goes amiss.

Do people REALLY hate something because it's popular for that reason alone? Can you point out 3 popular things that people hate purely out of that aspect?

Also, is there that much hate against CoD? With the first Modern Warfare I was under the impression that everyone loved it considering the praise, when I played it I also loved it. MW2 didn't reach out to me quite like the first did, but it was still a thrill.
It dosen't really make any sense.

 

[Kenami]

Wow Jim you literally hit every point I'd like to make whenever I see a "COD is for dummies thread"

Well done.

 

[Xman490]

Besides not finding it fun (I prefer my shooters and whatnot to have fast-moving characters), the only criticism I stand by is FULL PRICE FOR EACH ONE? Guessing that all you showed us is from CoD:MW1, that means each of them plays practically the same (with a new weapon or two, like that remote-controlled toy car bomb thing). But whatever. Call of Duty's aiming at rich folk, apparently.

loving the attitude(s)

 

[Slim-Shot]

I made it about 30seconds through the clip

 

[NightHawk21]

I don't hate Call of Duty (except MW2), but I thoroughly enjoyed every other COD I've played. The only problem I have with the Cod franchise is that its gotten so big and successful that it causes publishers to change parts of their series that made them unique to make it more user friendly and overall more like cod. Case and point, killzone 2 and 3. Killzone 2 was a very good shooter with a distinctive feel to it, and I've clocked quite a bit of hours into it. Killzone 3 is also a very good shooter, but its become a lot more "newb friendly" (I don't mean that in a derogatory way) and as such has alienated the more dedicated killzone 2 portion of its fanbase. I'ld have preferred if they would have stuck with a more kz2 feel, but I understand the pressure from the developers to emulate the biggest cash cow out there.

 

[mjc0961]

you want a good reason why cod sucks?
not only has everyone else copied the game

Stop right there.

Why is other people copying the game a reason for CoD sucking? That makes no sense. In fact, it really goes to show the opposite of what you want: nobody would try to copy a game that sucked, because people would have played the original and said "that sucks!". Nobody's copied E.T., Daikatana, or Big Rigs Over the Road Racing.