This "cod hate" is getting out of hand.

[timithy4569]

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.

I also agree that people who say Battlefield 3 will be ungodly are being silly. I will also say that Battlefield has the worst community, with Call of Duty in second. If you have ever heard many podcasts or read been around many Battlefield fanboys. You should have known that many believe that they are the worst and that they act like it.

Also, MacJack. Homefront was bashed about it's 5 hour campaign. In almost every critic review it was bashed on about that. The game did however had a very good multiplayer. It was a combination of quake 3, battlefield, call of duty, along with many other games. It worked and probably the biggest gripe about the multipleyer was that snipers were overpowered in almost every way.

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"

The generalization can be sympathized with. In general, the audience for First-Person shooters has one of the largest concentration of "Douchebags".

It is because of this:

1)It is one of the most popular games out there.

2)"Non-Douchebags" don't like hanging around many "Douchebags".

3)"Douchbags" are okay more okay with hanging around other "Douchebags".

4)Many "Non-Douchebags" leave

5)There is now a high concentration of "Dochebags"


About Doom that you bring up so much. There has been a lot of changes and everyone still most people who hated it never came back. It is praised as a classic just like Call of Duty 1-3 have and still are. I don't understand the selection of games you are choosing. They have either already been complained about,(Even good games are complained about) or are just horrible examples. I don't even understand why you are giving us these examples. Logically it doesn't even make sense. You telling us these games that weren't complained about,(They were)that still doesn't make Call of Duty Black Ops any better/ not deserving of being called annoying.

Here is why CoD is bagged on. People shouldn't buy a new Call of Duty.

1)The market is saturated.

2)The franchise is not benefiting the development community.

3)Investors are looking for the next Call of Duty and are making clones because it is doing so well(ties into number 2)

4)Call of Duty is not giving out anything new. There are now new mechanics and it is the same old same old.

5)If no one buys Call of Duty, Some other genre will(hopefully) take the reigns and would move the industry forward.

6)We are the buyers and we should be looking out for the industry. Less of the same means less boring games for everyone else.(people who don't like FPS or wants something more different)

7)You should buy other games because it does not have as many clones as Call of Duty.

8)Call of Duty Black Ops does not suck. It's a great game but if we continue to buy it the industry will suffer/ eventually the game will start sucking even though nothing is wrong with it.(It is happening now.)

9)Did everyone forget about "the sequel year" that happened last year?

 

[Zeema]

cod is not making any progress its becoming like smackdown vs raw or fifa

Agreed

but i don't like CoD but i don't go to people i hate and say 'Go Play Cod noob'

 

[razer17]

How can people hate cod? It's delicious when battered and served with fish.

 

[Gunner 51]

Spoiler

I don't think people are hating on COD per se. But rather the people who play it - especially those who are immature and spend their time screaming obscenities into their headsets whenever they get killed.

I think the COD franchise is getting pretty stale and all of it's games are nothing more than a re-hashing. But unfortunately, it's an annual re-hashing. As the saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt.

But with the advances in technology, I expect to see slightly better graphics each time or a better campaign mode or even DLC which should have been on the disc to start with to go along with it's slowly increasing price tag.

COD is poster boy, a yardstick or a mirror of the gaming industry. People aren't liking what they see. They see an overpriced flash-in-the-pan which was made in some Activision sponsored sweat-shop which not only isn't a particularly good game, but it's also riddled with cheats and glitchers.

While this could be said for any game which a hater doesn't like - COD will get the brunt of it because it's considered cool to hate that which is en vogue. Hate COD for being overpriced and bad value for money - but don't hate it because of who plays it. It's just pretentious.

Honestly most franchises outhere are doing it and no you wont see any advance in techology on dated consoles when the gam runs on 60 fps. What is so weird about that?

While most other franchises certainly offer more of the same, they usually have enough difference to mark it as a satisfactory continuation of the series. But the strange thing is, you CAN have better graphics on a current gen console.

Juxtapose the graphics between CoD 4 and Black Ops - there is a slight difference. BLOPs has a slight improvement in graphics quality, but it's several years newer than CoD 4.

 

[nuba km]

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

NO, you didn't see my point as my point is here on earth and your must be somewhere on mars if you get 'I don't like realism' from me saying

a giant fan base who calls it the best game ever.

My POINT is that call of duty is a game with a average campaign and unbalanced multiplayer that requires close to no skill but rather cheap tactics.

[HEADING=2]FIRST RESPOND TO MY ORIGINAL POINT BEFORE RESPONDING TO WHAT I AM WITTING NEXT[/HEADING]

also lets take a look at brink and call of duty multiplayer:
brink: A heavily objective multiplayer with a large variation in the pace of combat and is also heavily focused on working as a team. It also has much more customisation when it comes to guns were you should properly spent the first hour or two or ten of the game figuring out your perfect gun. This is a multiplayer that only a small group of people will like and for those people it is well designed as there are very few ways to be cheap (well so far I have seen non) with weapons that feel very different to use for the most part.

that is not bad multiplayer but rather multiplayer that appeals to small group of people and often when I ask people 'why did you think brink was bad' they either say they didn't like it or that they didn't like one of the things brink was focused on. This can be logically translated to the fact that people have a habit of calling things bad that they don't like. I mean I don't really like civilisation but it is still a good game.

Call of duty: a fast paced, completely unrealistic fps with a perk system and a small variation in multiplayer modes (only big veriation are vager(or how ever you spell it) matches. this has a larger target market and therefore more people should like it. But it is very easy to be cheap in it as it is extremely unbalanced and all that killstreaks achive is but widen the gap between the person who is winning and the poeple who are losing and not due to skill level, and using anything other then a lmg or a assault rifle is like throwing cheese as a shotgun only has an effective range slightly longer then the knife dash and the smg's are too weak and have too much or a spread to make then a use for anything then killing someone point blank, but yet again you have a knife dash for that.

that is bad multiplayer but because the fan base has a large portion of players who only play CoD and/or sports games that means they don't really have any point of comparison and therefore play it with out knowing of much better experiences. Also another large chunk of the fan base are people who just care about 'owning people' and don't care about whether it takes skill and therefore CoD's heavily unbalanced multiplayer appeals do them.

 

[Silenttalker22]

You SURE its the fans that complained since "tomb raider 2" because for a game that made it through 5 rehashed games it seems unlikely, Perhaps you were selective about which people you remember

First of all yes, I'm quite sure. I was a large fan of the series. Second, you just defended the fan approval of the series, by means of it's number of sequels. By that logic, no one here complaining about COD repetitiveness is a fan, because it has a bunch of sequels.

 

[Quellist]

Ok nvm, i clicked on this thinking it was an OT post about how cod is being demonized as unsustainable and how we should eat other fish instead.

/facepalm

 

[MacJack]

CoD is maligned because nothing has changed since Cod4. NOTHING. Same gameplay, same multiplayer, same general map design, very similar campaigns, and no change in engine. When a game series starts flaunting balancing as major changes, you know your series has gone down the shitter.

saying its he same is biased. As i said i did not like black ops, i cant believe you complain about the singleplayer not being diffirent? What you want them to do? Change the sp becasue people who hate the game dont like it? Come on, its supose to be the same franchise and not something else.

You can't "think" these things. This is hardly open to debate- it's not subjective. What I gave you was an objective, fact-based post and you haven't responded with anything worthy of being called an argument.

As for the Battlefield 3 hype...have you even seen the gameplay trailers? The game is on a vastly improved engine which puts IW 4.0 (or whatever they're up to) to shame. It has some of the best, and most realistic, character animations present in video games. It is shaping up to be one of the best looking first person shooter experiences ever.

When one cannot actually play the game, graphics are a very important aspect, because all your doing when you watch a trailer is viewing. When a game has an engine like Battlefield 3 does, which is leaps and bounds ahead of its main competitor, it's going to make some jaws drop.

Am sorry but those are not facts, they ARE subjective, its like that old joke that says "take the area with an acceptable amount of casualties"

and what is the acceptable amount of casualties? In this case, what is he acceptable amount of changes and what justify them as BIG ones? SO yeah its subjective and not FACTS. Some may think one game had big changes other think otherwise.

Also the "new" engine that dice is possing with wont really do much on consoles only on pc. On consoles it runs on half the fps to do it. You can show new graphics on dated hardware. Cod had some of the best animations while bc2.. not really, now bf3 has new animations, but all i have seen from gameplay videos so far and i mean E3 MP gameplay make it look like a mix between bc2 and moh with the same animation. Truth is, dice has not realised any actual mp footage. So lets wait for them to do that.

Warning: the following post is longer than it really should be.

Actually if you take a look on brotherhood and revelation, or uncharted and stalker you will see they do the exact same thing. Like i said its easy to fix something that needs fixing and those changes will impress but the way i see it, those things should already been done right in the first place.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

-

 

[Juk3n]

edit

 

[Juk3n]

The fact still stands that they're not very good.

I think you need to look up the definition of 'fact'.

Short Shmort, i've loved every CoD campaign, length isnt an essential factor in the experience for this particular brand because the multiplayer is the meat. Nonetheless it's always a good ride on a CoD campaign despite it's length and when i finish a campaign i feel satisfied, time to embark on some kick-ass multiplayer.

 

[burhanr]

oh crap, my mouse kinda slipped and i hit report on one of the OP's post. oh crap. i swear i did not do that on purpose.

so.. er.. i have to formulate a reply to this thread then..

well, uh,
i want to say, "its a kinda cheap fun game" but even the steam summer sale cant get cod4 to go down below 20 usd, so screw that.
i want to say, "the campaign is fast paced and exciting" but so does other quality fps(bulletstorm, crysis 2), and they last longer than 4 hours, also with a bit more innovation in the game itself.
i want to say, "eh, maybe the fans aren't that bad" and i tried a bit of xbox life at my friend's house.

well shit, i kinda like the cod series, especially the modern ones, where the villains are russians/pmcs/AMERIKANS.

ya know what, why be bothered on cod haters? yes its not a very good game, but you love it, and its all that matters. the video gaming community needed something to hate so let it be cod.

 

[MacJack]

It's because of the IQ80 bro culture the CoD series brings into the gaming world. It's because the games do in fact change less than the Assassin's Creed or Stalker or Fallout series, contrary to what you believe, with each new installment. It's because the audience of those games is the most ripe for being and willing to be ripped off out there.

Actually i think they do about the same and that this "pseudo superiority" is missplaced. Those games are being bought by the same people, so that leads me to see this as "cod hate" like you ignore it about one game because you like it and bash it on another game because you dislike it.

The difference between the CoD series and the other ones you've listed here is that the other games aren't being released on a yearly basis (Assassin's Creed the exception here). Furthermore, these other games always come with engine improvements, gameplay enhancements, story development, etc far beyond what CoD does every year. Aside from making new multiplayer maps and weak 4 hour campaigns, not much goes into CoD's annual releases. There are minor additions such as the odd new weapon or killstreak reward, but the fatigue from what is essentially a re-skinned game with different art assets coming out every year is definitely souring most gamers' view of the series.

Now, just because they use the same formulae to success as each other, does not mean they don't make any changes and it would be stupid to say so otherwise. You only have to play MW and WaW to tell that each game has a very different atmosphere from the other. WaW is a great representation of how brutal the war was, helped by the murky feel to the game and the high level of gore. Did MW feel like this? No. It is what it is.
MW2 again feels nothing like MW or WaW. Blops only feels a lot like MW2 because they have a similar visual style (Graphically, it's at a high standard) But it still has a sense of uniqueness to it.

You have no argument with the story. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean they're no improvement over the other. I personally loved the World at war campaign and I know a lot of people enjoyed MW.
Plus WaW adds zombies. MW2 has Spec ops, Blops again had zombies. They're all very individual games.

Very well said.

so its not really biased at all,it sounds more like your being a fanboy over this game and you cant hold it in anymore...

..What? When I read the OP, it seemed like he was just tired of hearing about the CoD hate. You can't assume he's a fanboy of the CoD series. He even set out many examples about games being related in similar matters.

Also, I agree with him. Though I don't really admire CoD because of their fans being truly biased thinking they know everything- you can't be hating the game without knowing why. Many hate the CoD series is because it's been around for the longest time with the same stuff set in place except with some tweaks thus somehow still being popular. People hate that, and think the CoD series doesn't deserve that type of attention.

Not really into their games anymore, but I have been running into a lot of hateful topics and rants about CoD which is sort of getting out of hand overall. But seriously, assuming is the worst thing you can do in a discussion because it'll always mislead you. Take it from me by personal experience.. but not telling you that you must listen to me for you have the right to post how you want. Just giving you advise is all.

Agreed, i am just pointing out that while i like all those things, cod hatred is biased since those things can be said for many other games, i guess that makes me a "cod fanboy" because am not cool since i dont hate cod like the rest

/Sarcasm

But MW is terrible and the sequels are a rehash of a broken game which is why it gets so much criticism. It has also done noting new to the genre. The only reason it is 'the game everyone is playing' is due to good marketing, and this is also the only reason why it has sold so many copies.

Thats what am talking about, you hate mw, we get it, its ok but dont make it a fact on how its universally considered to be "terrible" I mean ATLEAST cod4 we can all agree that it was a great game.

 

[nuba km]

(TF2 has terrible multiplayer)

Fixed it for you.

by by 'fixing' my post so stupidly

 

[The Cheezy One]

People are saying that its because they have made no improvements since its release.

Come up with your own improvements, then we'll talk. Comparing it to AC doesn't work, because AC has a lot more freedom to improve, as there are more elements to it. When your game is based around running and gunning, it doesn't quite fit to try to cut some of it out.

I still find it to be a fairly interesting, OTT shooter, and I enjoy it (well, not Black Ops. Hearing the words 'Dragovich, Kravchenco, Steiner. All must die' whenever I close my eyes damaged the experience for me)

EDIT: and of course, the COD4 lightning will not strike again, as originality, by definition will only happen once. If we had MW2 in place of COD4, it would probably receive roughly the same result as MW1, although somewhat watered down.

 

[harvz]

from what i see, every time the new CoD comes out, people hype it up and are constantly disappointed that it isnt as good as CoD4 (because they want an experience as good as CoD4 but dont want a rehash). the ones who defend it (particularly on youtube) are little kids who swear like they are unable to say 2 polite words in the same sentence without spontaneous combustion.

ill just be frank here, games designed to be released on a short schedule (im looking at you CoD and the upcoming halo's) seem to be designed to fail from a quality standpoint, each release just absorbing the remaining consumers funds that the previous one failed to draw in. such a tight schedule leaves problems for everyone.

 

[Windcaler]

I disagree with a lot of points the main one being the a successful franchise automatically equals good when good is a subjective opinion. Look at the string of Transformers movies to come out over the last few years, each one was considered a success but were they good? I certainly think not

Another issue that I heavily disagree with is the word hate. Many "COD haters" that Ive spoken with have a detailed opinion on why they dont like the games and what could be done better with them. I fall into that category myself but in these cases "hate" really means "disagrees with my opinion" and that sounds like the way your using it too, maybe Im wrong there

Being ex-military, I think the Call of duty series has a lot more that it could do but its moving away from semi-realistic military based shooter for more of a secret agent type feel. It started in Modern warefare 2 and only grew worse with black ops. Now dont get me wrong, if you want a secret agent style FPS then thats fine but thats not what CoD makes itself out to be in its marketing. So yes, I get a little annoyed with the story. Although my biggest complaint about the story of MW2 and Black ops was the shortness of them and how they were so unnecessarily padded out. Without padding both games could probably be completed during my lunch break. The second biggest problem is mostly for MW2 but the story relied on making Russian police and security officials look completely incompetant and I have a problem with that

Story aside, lets face it. The games are made for multiplayer. Thats it. My standard of a game is 8-10 hours minimum of single player and if it has multiplayer it must be balanced. That will earn it $60 from me but CoD is so focused on multiplayer that it seems to just have a single player thrown carelessly in and that makes it worth no more then $30 of my money. Arbitrary and subjective spending, I know but thats my opinion. You dont have to like or agree with it

Really, I dont know what the big deal is with defending CoD against criticism. If you like playing CoD then no amount of hate or criticism should get to you. You're having fun and thats all the proof you need for you to say the games good for you

 

[Tdc2182]

The cod hate is because most COD fans think they know everything about guns yet they know jack about them so they look like fools

I'm gonna stop you right there.

This is the new stupidest reason to hate Call of Duty.

also successful =/= good.

Yet, it also doesn't mean that it's bad. This is another very illogical point that people seem to bring up.

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.

This is another rather poor argument.

Twilight is popular because it is very much a girl's love fantasy done exceptionally well. The material is designed for a certain audience. You are not in that certain demographic that it aims for, therefor nothing about it appeals to you.

To you, it's an idiotic tweenage girl vampire destroying terrible series (and ya know... you're right about that)

CoD does best at what it aims to do best. Make a very chaotic fast paced arcadey modern day shooter with an addicting perk and ranking system.

So yes, just because a series does well doesn't mean it's very good. But that doesn't exactly apply here.

CoD is maligned because nothing has changed since Cod4. NOTHING. Same gameplay, same multiplayer, same general map design, very similar campaigns, and no change in engine.

Don't fix what aint broken? (but... ya know, do fix the balance issues and stuff)

Call of Duty has the most flawless engine in the console shooter market. It is the best at what it does. Not to mention that the engine has taken some pretty hefty makeovers from Call of Duty 4 to Modern Warfare 2.

The perk system took off from where it previously started in CoD4 with the arrival of Pro perks. New gun management with a new secondary system added made the game much more open for combinations of tactics.

Also, what current game series has taken a big enough overhaul to actually warrant a complaint like this? A whole redesigned campaign? Groundbreaking map design that isn't similar to any of the others in it's series?

Halo? It took almost 4 years for a new game to come out, and the only thing that really changed from the previous one was it now having the ability to run on 720p.

Battlefield? Sure, a new engine. Because the old one would now be considered unplayable in this modern market.

Now make no mistake people. I'm not trying to defend the game series. I just want to take the opportunity to quash these ridiculous arguments that I keep seeing pop up everywhere.

OT: I actually thought the CoD hate was slowly dying down. It's much less sporadic then usual.

But I do have to say, Modern Warfare 3 looks exactly the same as MW2. I don't think the game was being taken as seriously this time around.

 

[Megacherv]

1)its because CoD as been around for AGES! and its been done TO DEATH and nothing is being done to try and revamp it or play out in different and interesting ways.


2)yes cause they werent done very well and it felt very poorly made...



3)cause that was what Doom was,Doom 2 was expanded upon by bringing higher difficulty some new monsters and some new toys to play with. Doom 3 was a failure cause it was trying too hard to be scary and they focused on "scary" and cheap tricks that got boring and soon became too easy to spot to the point you say "oh look a long corridor with nothing at the end of it,but something will crawl out of a grate somewhere and sneak up behind me... *walks backwards down corridor sees materializing monster...shoots it,its dead*



4)there are only 2 stalker games i believe,so not much will change yes. but once again you went somewhere NEW and wasnt doing the same objective as last time,plus you got new toys to play with (how you do that with a prequel i dont know xD) and i just acknowledged that some of those problems exist but your unfairly comparing them.



5) Battlefield is what it is,a online arena team type army game.you cant change too much or you'll alienate your audience too much.this is in the same boat as MMO's if you change too much your gonna lose alot of your ONLINE fanbase. and Battlefield has what,4-5 games? and 3 of them and MUCH different from each other? and lets not forget that their not releasing a new battlefield EVERY 6-8 MONTHS! (or so)

so its not really biased at all,it sounds more like your being a fanboy over this game and you cant hold it in anymore...

1)5) so has battlefield, yet people still enjoy it and as you said why change the formula? Same with cod. Also Cod does not come out in 6-8 months, back then when battlefield was a pc game, there released exapnsions constantly, saldy things have changed and on consoles you most likely to make a new product to sell rather and expansion. Thats what cod is doing.


2) fair enought but...

3)4)How can you say taht doom 2 and the 3 stalker games "expanded" there was not much new, one new weapon and a bunch of new monsters in doom and in stalker they used the same maps from the first game in clear sky and added a bunch of pistols and a machinegun while in call of pripyat they added ONLY an automatic shotgun and new monsters that were already in the files of the first game but locked and could be unlocked by mods.


I dont see how the thing i pointed do not prove that doom 2 and stalker series are more recycled than cod with fewer new additions. How can you say taht stalker had "new toys to play with" and cod had not? Thats a total unfrair comparison right there since both of them lack the same things.

Dont you think?

Are you honestly using Doom 2 as an example of other games being re-hashed? It's Doom-fucking-2! You couldn't update it that much, you couldn't jump, have layered floors and ceilings, nor could you look up or down. Why not go the whole hog and say that the original MegaMan series was also a bane of gaming's existence...

CoD is a franchise that despite the tools and frankly stoooooopid amount of money that they have earned from releasing the highest-grossing game ever and THEN breaking their own record the year after: the games are re-hashed, multiplayer-based, have stupidly short and frankly fucking stupid campaigns (after CoD 4) and there is absolutely no fucking excuse for it.

Defending CoD is a losing battle, the proof is in the pudding. CoD is a franchise full of potential but filled far more with boring stodgy constant-gunfire-from-all-directions-tedium that was ripped out from last year's game, and the fact that it's so successful is doing wonders to the downfall of gaming and our culture.

 

[colourcodedchaos]

Calling CoD a good game is silly. It's a fantastic business model, sure, because there's a boatload of rednecks out there who like firing automatic weapons at them thar dirty furraners, but very rarely are the games interesting in single player. In the WWII-era games, it's the same damn story rehashed over and over again. If you want good wartime stories, watch some Powell & Pressburger films, in particular Ill Met By Moonlight. In the Modern era, with the exception of MW1 (which really is a case of the exception proving the rule as far as I'm concerned) the stories just come off as formulaic low-grade action movie twatbatter. Besides, as we all know from Yahtzee beating this drum all the time, games cannot standup on multiplayer, because that has a shedload of problems, not least of which is the fact that you're playing against the kind of hyperactive, borderline-psychotic, xenophobic twelve-year-olds and fratboy rot-raddled albatross quims that make up CoD's core demographic.

Fantastic business model, yes. License to print money, yes.

Good game? Hell. No.