This "cod hate" is getting out of hand.

[Mallefunction]

Frig...double post. Sorry.

 

[Sinoda]

MacJack. I've been trying to be polite...But you're kiddding with the whole "Revelations trailer showing same gameplay and everything" thing, right? As far as I know, there IS NO FRIGGING GAMEPLAY FOOTAGE.

*deep breath*

Yes, the CoD series does refine it's multiplayer each game. But refinement alone doesn't make for a good game. You need to add more better, and keep the good to make a decent sequel.

 

[EonEire]

I agree and apart from that i remember in the past halo was bashed just as bad as cod. i guess people hate what is very popular and sucessfull if they dont like it, simply because it doesnt reach the hype it gets by all those other people who like it.

That happens with a lot of games, for instance Fable 3 and Dragon Age 2 I enjoyed so so much but others freaked out because they believed Peter Molyneux for the 3rd time, rather then just taking it all with a pinch of salt (He isn't trying to lie he is just being over ambitious and in the ends its his downfall) and had their expectations too high for Dragon Age 2 which in all fairness had a vastly improved combat system.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

in reallity its one of the most sucessfull franchises thus a very good geame

In the same way Twilight was an incredible movie, correct? Success and quality are different things entirely. Anything can succeed under the right conditions, and anything can fail under the wrong ones. The idea is to try and make something passable for what you aim for. That's what the CoD games are: passable.

I'm not one to hate on them. They're ALRIGHT games, but no where near deserving of the fanbase they have. Hell, the only reason they have a fanbase is because they have a fanbase...you know you're getting into a long-term community with CoD, which is a major selling point. Self-perpetuation, in a way. The next CoD could literally be the first one with a new name and it will sell millions of copies on brand-power alone.

That doesn't mean the games are bad. They're just...damaging to the industry at this point because of the fanbase behind them. If something sells that much, that becomes the inspiration for the publishers who call all the shots ("see how CoD did it? Scrap your mechanics and do something more like that"), which means that's the same stuff that will keep showing up in the mainstream marketplace until something takes it's place.

Also they're very solo-driven multiplayer experiences in design, which is a breeding ground for self-gratifying pricks. Says nothing about the games quality, it's just a design focus that I feel is harmful.

 

[MacJack]

yes and nearly no one liked those games as they were worse then call of duty with meh multiplayer (CoD has terrible multiplayer) but the difference is that we aren't subjected to a new moh and hoimefront every 8-12 months, and it doesn't have a giant fan base who calls it the best game ever. It is the same reason people hate twilight, it is not just because it is a terrible movie, I mean there are far worse movies but it's fan base seems to praise twilight as the bast movie ever and that is what pisses people like movie buffs off.

easy on the "terrible" ther i wouldnt say cod has bad mp, i played many worse ones like the games i pointed out or crysis 2 or brink, in any case some of us dont like generic war fps with the usual "realism" thingy, perks and killstreaks and fast gameplay kidna changed that, but i see your point

As long as the games continue to be good, and as long as I don't get screwed out of my money with stupid subscription based shit, I'll keep buying them.

What pisses me off, is how people look towards Battlefield 3 as some sort of lord and saviour. Don't get me wrong I love Battlefield, more so than CoD, but good God I wish people would shut the fuck up about it.

You know what's going to happen if Battlefield makes a shit-ton of money? EA will do the same thing with Battlefield that Activision does with CoD. They'll find ways to bleed you dry out of your money because they know they can get it. How long will it be before everyone becomes sick of Battlefield and wishes Shooter-X would kick it in the nuts?

Actually i do believe that too. On bf3? Apart from graphics it hasnt showed anything impressive so far, i mean... come on, the E3 tank gameplay was borring, id rather play mw3 campaign. I seriously doubt bf3 will get more sales than cod what i worry is taht people make bf3 look like a god savior game as you said and i think that they might hype it too much and it doesnt reach the hype causing a small flop here and there.

For the record what activision is doing "one game every year" was done in the past with MOH by ea but they couldnt keep up and failed. Imo Kotick is beating ea in their own idea!

I think it's because of the fact that a new Call of Duty comes out every year.
Not many other game series have a game releases every year, so while those other games you mentioned have similarities to their predecessors, they're usually released at longer intervals, and therefore somewhat "less repetitive."
I hope I made some sort of sense there.

Lets just say that: THAT alone does not justify the rest, but its still a point nevertheless.

 

[Aethren]

I don't particularly hate CoD, I just don't care enough about it to bother. Rehashes don't interest me, and if they did, I'd play something that actually has some color to it, like Madden, or Halo, instead of varying shades of brown and grey. I'm not a child person either, so the majority of the CoD fanbase, whether they be true children or stupid frat-boys with the mentality of children, don't really help CoD's case with me.

 

[Jester00]

Imo this cod hate is getting out of hand

So is your grammar. Seriously, you're not helping your case here.

Also, I see a major flaw in your argument here: Even if everything you say about the games you listed are true, how does that make CoD any better? Even if Assassin's Creed, Uncharted 3, Spiderman were also franchises that rehashes the same game (which they're fucking not), what does that have to do with CoD? The fact still stands that they're not very good.

you should read his post mr. grammar nazi. he's just wondering why nobody's hating on other series who do the same. he never said that his facts make cod any better. his point is that other series deserve the same hate.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

COD has the best engine on the market.

Until another console shooter runs at 60 frames per second and controls as fluidly as it, with the same fast paced, showboaty playstyle, it will remain at the top of the pile. BF3 will probably beat it on PC but on consoles it won't even make a dent in COD.

I look forward to seeing what Respawn come up with, I'm pretty sure they're the only team who will be able to give COD a run for its money.

 

[orangeban]

Well, I dislike COD a lot, an awful lot. Take Black Ops, firstly the plot was stupid enough to anger me (and I adore Cold War stories, so I took the plot extra personal) and I have a real dislike of modern, military, cover-based and twitch-based shooters. So it hardly ticked any of my boxes.

My main beef with MW3 is that the trailer butchers the English language (3ngland? Franc3? G3rmany? What monster did that?) but also that it appears to be a sight-seeing tour of Europe with some guns chucked in.

I'll admit that I liked New Vegas and praise it, especially in comparison to Fallout 3, but New Vegas at least has gameplay that appeals to me, clever writing and an actually ambigous moral choice system (well, at some parts).

So yeah, I don't like CoD and find some of its fans annoying in that they think they know everything about guns, warfare and the Cold War. Plus, the series has some real Ruskie hate in it, that I just don't get. Oh yeah, one more, MW2 and Black Ops (less so than MW2) really played into that whole America being invaded fetish that seems bizarrely popular, that ones less annoying, more confusing to me.

 

[Ruiner87]

I'd hardly say it's getting out of hand. The people that hate Call of Duty are mostly correct. It's the same recycled crap every single year, with one or two new features added in. Add to that, the fact that the series has one of the worst communities in the history of online gaming, and you've got a perfect recipe for something that people will bash day in and day out. Nevermind the fact that it popularized many of the gameplay features (regenerating health, continuation of the two-weapon system) that die-hard shooter fans hate.

These aspects don't stop me from enjoying the Call of Duty series, however. The 30 days of playtime that I have spread out across Call of Duty 4, Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops can attest to that.

Honestly? you are the kind of people i am talking about, its not cod that its "rehashed" its everything so lets not been biased about it, in any case from 18 million people, no matter how many you played with, you can generalize the entire community on some douchebags, like another user said in a similar thread, "its the squaky wheel that gets the grease"

If you're going to argue a point, at least try to be coherent. As rude as it might sound, I can hardly tell what you're disagreeing with me about.

You say that everything is rehashed, and you are correct, to an extent. However, most series add much more to their games over their development cycle. The problem with Call of Duty is that, with a new game being released every year, there is very little room for improvement in each title. They are rehashed and they include very few new features over the last title.

I'm going to compare the last two titles in the Call of Duty franchise, and then the last two (main) titles in the Halo franchise, seeing as I'm most familiar with these two.

Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops

Customizable Killstreaks: That's a check for both games.
Alternative game modes: A check for both games, although Nazi Zombies is a vast improvement over MW2's Spec Ops mode. Nazi Zombies was of course originally featured in World at War.
Theatre Mode: Excellent improvement over MW2, where the only way to share gameplay was to have a capture card of some sort.
Multiplayer Experience: Largely the same, although arguably more balanced. It's a new set of maps that play the exact same way. Assault Rifles and sitting behind a head of boxes reign supreme, as in Modern Warfare 2.

So out of all of the major features that were introduced, or were clearly the centre of attention, we can see that only one new feature was introduced, and one feature was expanded upon (by reintroducing something from an old game).

Halo 3 and Halo: Reach

Armour Abilities: A central gameplay feature that was introduced in Halo: Reach, and that was absent from Halo 3. Armour Abilities completely changed the face of the multiplayer experience.
Firefight Mode: Absent in Halo 3, and introduced in the next title (Halo 3: ODST). it is greatly expanded upon in Halo: Reach, with the ability to create custom Firefight modes and the ability to play in Firefight matchmaking. Although, it still doesn't match up to Nazi Zombies as a Co-Op experience.
Theatre Mode: Largely the same in both Halo 3 and Halo: Reach.
Forge Mode: Greatly expanded in Halo: Reach, with the ability to better create custom maps, and the gargantuan blank slate that is Forge World.
Multiplayer Experience: Plays different to Halo 3, but you can say it is largely the same. New weapons generally have a unique feel, unlike any new weapons in Call of Duty. This is due to the weapon effects, where as COD's weapons are all the same barring recoil and rate of fire.

The improvement made during the transition from halo 3 to halo: Reach are much larger than the transition from Modern Warfare 2 to Black Ops. A new gameplay mode is introduced, an entirely new feature in gameplay is introduced, and improvements are made in the map making features. As well as that, the new weapons are actually new.

So what was the point of all this? Well, firstly, to show that I'm not the greatest at making comparisons. Secondly, to show the difference between a series that comes out every year, and a series which releases a game every few years.

During the transition from Modern Warfare 2 to Black Ops, very few changes are made. The game is clearly rehashed. They add one new feature, and the game plays exactly the same. Now, in the transition from halo 3 to Halo: Reach, several new gameplay features are introduced, and improvements are made to existing ones. The game plays differently due to the fact that things such as fall damage were introduced, and the game is on a new engine- the graphics are greatly improved. Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops look basically the same.


This post isn't just some wall of Halo fanboy-ism. It's a wall of comparisons between a series that is clearly rehashed every year, and a series which makes notable improvements in the transition from title to title. This is mainly achieved by having longer development cycles, and by not having a game release every year. Your statement that all series rehash the same game over and over, and not just Call of Duty, is clearly false.

Edit: As for the point on the community, I've been involved in a few communities that were much better than Call of Duty's. The community over at Bethesda Softworks, developers of the Elder Scrolls and (new) Fallout, is quite large and is full of wonderful people. Even Halo's community is better, at least now. With all of the drunken frat boys moving onto Call of Duty, Halo is composed of more competitive, friendly players nowadays.

 

[MacJack]

Yeah, but there was a pretty long story campaign that actually furthered the plot...

long is not necessary better mosf of AC is repetition. As for story:

I am gonna grab my flameshield and say "so was mw2" and dodge the following keyboards that you gonna throw at me.

You see, not every game can have a great story eg Killzone 3, it "furthered" the plot too.

MacJack. I've been trying to be polite...But you're kiddding with the whole "Revelations trailer showing same gameplay and everything" thing, right? As far as I know, there IS NO FRIGGING GAMEPLAY FOOTAGE.

*deep breath*

Yes, the CoD series does refine it's multiplayer each game. But refinement alone doesn't make for a good game. You need to add more better, and keep the good to make a decent sequel.

Please do be polite i am trying to have a nice discussion, there is an E3 gameplay demo for revelations, its ezio running around killing dudes and jumping on a ship with some cannons. Also SAME graphics as ac2 and brotherhood. Look it up.

In the same way Twilight was an incredible movie, correct? Success and quality are different things entirely. Anything can succeed under the right conditions, and anything can fail under the wrong ones. The idea is to try and make something passable for what you aim for. That's what the CoD games are: passable.

A well made argument but as you said, its good for what you pass them. Cod is not passed as some harcdocre reallistic tactical game, but a casual fast paced shooter. I guess what am saying is you dont want the things i pointed,you should not get cod but something else instead but people pick stuff about cod that are apparent in some many games and its rather biased and confusive.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I don't get the CoD hate at all. Then again, I've only played the original, so maybe they got worse or something.

 

[Hugga_Bear]

Just because something sells well doesn't make it good. Have you ever heard of Twilight?

CoD has one of the worst engines in the AAA market, 60fps is meaningless, actually meaningless and that's all it's got. That and slightly improved graphics on CoD4. Slightly.

It's not that the other games don't use their old ones and improve on them, it's that CoD doesn't. It doesn't improve on things, it keeps them the same or abuses the good parts so they become bad. Look at the death scene in CoD4 after the nuke, generally regarded as the point which turned it into a great game.
MW2 rolls around and everyone loved dying so much you can do it again and again!!!!!! YAYYYYY!!!!!

It's idiotic and juvenile and indicative of the real problem with CoD. It has nothing new. It's improvements are things offered already by many other shooters and tend to be tangential to the things that need improving or should be improved game to game.
Gameplay is becoming more unbalanced, graphics are the same, story has vanished altogether to be replaced by a mythical dragon that spits rainbows and as a whole the series is going from bad to worse.

I WANT MW3 to be good. It has the potential it really does. But everything is against it being so, the progression of the series is nothing short of laughable and to compare it to games like Uncharted 2/3 or Infamous 2 or Killzone 3 just shows how badly you've missed the point.

 

[chiefohara]

This is slightly off kilter, but i deserted the COD franchise because of what activision did the the head developers of infinity ward. I followed those guys and their games from the old medal of honour days and to see them screwed by activision like that soured my appetite for the franchise.

 

[LordVikingofFire]

I prefer salmon myself

 

[orangeban]

its one of the most sucessfull franchises thus a very good geame.

Um, that's some twisted logic there, you know what else is popular? Twilight, Transformers and AIDS (in the sense lots of people have seen/got them).

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

Actually games like Dead Space, Killzone, etc made adjustments to the gameplay for the sequels. The COD games do very little in that department, repeating the same run, shoot, run, uncontrollable set piece, level end pattern.

Hell I used to be a COD fan but some things just get boring.

Take Assassins Creed for example, at it's core the gameplay is pretty much the same but as the series progresses improvements have been made. The core of the series is the same but its extremities keep expanding.

Now everything COD has could do has been done in a previous game and the multiplayer is running dry. Yet the fans of the series will still play it until the next game in the series dies out.

Am sorry i dont see it. People said the same about uncharted 2, that is a huge improvment on the first, well it wanst, itw as pretty much the same and thats why i liked it. Being a big fan of dead space, i fail to see what the big improvement in the second, its the same game with new weapons and a jetpack instead of reversed gravity and the hacking puzzles. Assasin's creed brotherhood is EXACTLY like ac2 but with the brotherhood feature and you can buy more stuff...oh and cannons. The revelations trailer showed that its he same thing, same gameplay same graphics same cannons.

Suprisingly all those games have the same graphics.

I dont really see how cod is any less or how thse games are bigger improvements.

MW2 added killstreaks and revolutionized the way mp fps are nowdays, hell even crysis 2 copied that feature. Black ops made the game more balanced and killed quickscoping and added a new buying system. Those things really mean alot in mp considering i liked one of them and disliked the other one. So i wouldnt say its "the same game"

Just like Halo, I hate the Players not the Game. Both CoD and Halo are shining examples of how bad Online Multiplayer can be and it just sours any enjoyment you can have from a game when you have to put up with some of the most obnoxious people on the planet just to play a multiplayer match. "Mute them then" is usually the first port of call for a complaint like that to which the only response is, why don't those idiots grow up and act respectfully towards others instead of throwing around sexist / racist / homophobic comments for absolutely no reason.

I agree and apart from that i remember in the past halo was bashed just as bad as cod. i guess people hate what is very popular and sucessfull if they dont like it, simply because it doesnt reach the hype it gets by all those other people who like it.

Point 1: AC Brotherhood's improvement was the addition of a multiplayer feature. As for uncharted I can't really say much about it because I have not played it.

Point 2: Yes these games are fun now but unfortunately it won't last MW3 is going to be the 8th core game in the series. Their is only so much of a game you can improve before you can't improve any more or break the formula that makes the game great.

Point 3: I don't blame the game for it's current state I blame the fans. People are often too quick to complain about the slightest thing and the devs can't fix everything for everyone.

Point 4: Check out this group for we seek to promote good sportsmanship between gamers and could use new members http://www.escapistmagazine.com/groups/view/Generation-Game-GG

And finally Point 5: Was that a reach pun in your last paragraph

 

[MacJack]

you should read his post mr. grammar nazi. he's just wondering why nobody's hating on other series who do the same. he never said that his facts make cod any better. his point is that other series deserve the same hate.

Exactly i like all those games, i am just pointing out that those things appear in other games too and when they actually "changed" it like with doom 3 and prince of persia in 2008, i hated them for it and wanted the old games back, i wish they made it like the old ones.

COD has the best engine on the market.

Until another console shooter runs at 60 frames per second and controls as fluidly as it, with the same fast paced, showboaty playstyle, it will remain at the top of the pile. BF3 will probably beat it on PC but on consoles it won't even make a dent in COD.

I look forward to seeing what Respawn come up with, I'm pretty sure they're the only team who will be able to give COD a run for its money.

I am saying this to people all the time, you can make better graphics on dated hardware and run on 60 fps. For what it does, cod has a pretty good engine, it looks ok and runs on 60 fps with pretty good net stability

CONSOLE WISE NOT PC

BF3 will beat cod on pc but on consoles... in any case there is no reason to pick a new engine near the end of the gen for one that is untested when the current one works so well let alone the fact that increasing the graphics quality will not delvier the 60 fps that cod games run on.

It's true, but personally, I think CoD recieves more hate because it is often hugely, horrendously overhyped (see black ops). Most of the ire is also reserved for many of the more obnoxious fans, who only buy black ops and trumpet it to be superior to all other games on forums. You are right though, there are definitely many games that are rip-offs that just aren't punished enough for it.

Thanks for argeeing, for the record, i did not like black ops, it looked alot like mw2, but sadly, gameplay, controls, graphics and net cod (lag) were pretty inferior in my opinion. As i pointed many games have the same problem, cod gets alot of hate but then again there its the biggest franchise right now, it's gonna have more people who dislike it than other games as well as more fans than other games.