This "cod hate" is getting out of hand.

[Wuggy]

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.

I'm not a grammar nazi. I just don't like crippling bad grammar. In other words: I like coherence so that I know what exactly I'm responding to.

Him saying that the "hate" (and man has people on the internet bastardized that word) is getting "out of hand". That would imply that it is somehow unjustified and/or too harsh. Then he points out random games that are held in high regard. I'm just trying to find the correlation here.

 

[IcePure]

I actually Like CoD. Black Ops' mutiplayer was a dissapointment for me, the only real new features as far as the main game is concerned (i.e NOT the theatre) were a bunch of camos and some rediculous red dot sight options - which as an iron sight user means nothing to me. The new weapons (i.e the ones that were actually new, not recycled or 'tweaked') were never used, or were terrible. The story was rediculous too, now that I think about it. Actually, the only reason I bought it is so I could play Nazi Zombies with my girlfriend.

My problem with the franchise is that the DLC costs far too much for four or five maps. I don't buy DLC anymore, because the maps are usually awful - but the fact that a good few million people do means that even my beloved Deus Ex: Human Revolution is going to have DLC. Mass Effect 2 had DLC. What!? Shouldn't all this be packaged with the game already?

Call of Duty has the exact mechanics of the previous one - which when we're charged £45 or $60 (depending on where you live) for what's basically a reskin with an atrocious story added in and some new gimmicky features (emblems are ALWAYS some sort of penis), it's not worth the game. I'm stopping here with the franchise - I waited 4 months to buy BO just so I knew what my friends thought of it when the novelty wore off (but this was thrown out the window with the whole 'zombies' thing).

The actual hate I would say comes from other companies taking example from it. Quick, name your top three favourite games from 2010 onwards! At least ONE of them will have DLC, I guarantee*. The widespread hate sounds like a combined, unconscious effort to get people off CoD so that the gaming industry pull their finger out and deliver some complete titles that are not clones released every year.

Furthermore, the community is represented by all the children playing it that take it far too seriously and ***** and scream at you for any reason at all. This doesn't represent all players - but they're the ones you remember.

4 was a damn good game. WaW was a fine game with a new gamemode added that was brilliant, but here started the mass DLC at £10 (I bought the game for £40, and paid £30 total for DLC). MW2 returned us to the fun that was 4, but continued the DLC trend. From here, Call of Duty will always feel like a corporate sell out to get into your wallets - and here's the kicker - it's because it is.

 

[Android2137]

But I do hate cod, it's nowhere near as good as salmon.

As much as we really shouldn't derail the topic like this, good call. Salmon is amazing.

Come over here some time, we get salmon coming up the river in november. Really.

Awww! You guys stole my thunder! I was going to make fish jokes! (As fond as I am of salmon, mackerel will always be my favorite.)

 

[Bat Vader]

The main thing that I dislike about the recent Call of Duty games are the short campaigns and the stories they have. When I have to pay $60.00 for a game I would at least like the single player campaign to be around 40-60 hours long if not longer. I know that is difficult to do with an FPS but I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that the campaign be at least 15-20 hours long.

In my opinion some of the recent Call of Duty games have had terrible stories. In Modern Warfare 2 it seemed like they dropped an entire sub-plot when you discovered the dead guy with the tattoos found in the house with the dead VIP. It is never mentioned again. I think one or two of Makarov's men die in the airport mission but no attention is ever paid to them.

I know the Call of Duty series is mainly known for its multiplayer but if the developers and publishers say that the story will be good than I expect it to be written well.

 

[Silenttalker22]

I liked the one reference to the fanboy worship, comparing it to Twilight fanbase. At IGN's game of the year choice, when the real debate was between Mass Effect and Red Dead, there were endless, ENDLESS comments about how COD is "infinitely" better than either. Again, a mass of simple folks who do nothing but COD multiplayer, with no real experience in gaming culture.

For the record I loved MW1+2. Didn't buy Black ops cuz as Yahtzee says "I don't give a flying shit about multiplayer and neither do a lot of people". But I can safely call myself a hater of the series' fans.

 

[MacJack]

long post

Actually, i do thing people are a bit biased on this, i think cod has just as much improvements and new stuff as the game i pointed out and i DO NOT mean that in a good way, infact i would like to see more from all those franchises but that risks causing the game to fail the fans. I mean look at black ops, i did not like it much despite having little changes over mw2 as most people say.

What confuses me the most is the BF hype, i have yet to see something in bf3 that was not already in bf2 or bc2...and no i dont thin supressing is important enough to bother.

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.

Sorry, but for ID to take a crapload of time toning down graphics when you dont expect to look in order to make rage run on 60 fps.... it has to be important. That being said, cod engine does not improve much due ot that, they gotta hold the 60fps and for me, its important if i played cod on 30, it will be too slow. Honestly uncharted 3 and killzone 3 are the same i fail to see how you say i miss the point. Perhaps i did not made my point clear?

Yeah but if everything that is sucessfull can be bad, then nearly every game can be bad despite its sucess because someone says so. Seriously pick a game, is it sucessfull? then it must not be great,so i guess, thats "twisted logic" too.

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

1)To be honest i thought the mp in AssBro (cool name eh?) dead space 2 and uncharted 2 have to be the most pointless feature you can use on a singleplayer based game, but i realize i am biased since its actually much bigger feature than what cod has added but as one of my friends said "Its easy to impress by adding something that in other games is there to begin with or fixing and obvious flaw, but if the template is ok, there is not much to add/fix now is there?"

2)I am hoping that since its mw3 and mw2 was bigger than black ops, that we wil see something since its too early to tell, but yeah, i dont think they will change much just like my other favorite franchise uncharted.

3)People compained about cod4 not being accessable enough, they made waw more accesable, then they complained about not being fun, they added killstreaks, then they complained about being unbalanced, they balanced black ops, like the guy from bioware said "no matter what we choose to do, someone will get pissed anyway"

4)thanks

 

[Crazycat690]

I don't hate CoD, but I do think it's a shallow series, and it sticks out because they every year releases a new CoD game with a short campaign and same old multiplayer. I'd like to see a new engine, I mean if I play Black Ops, and then go to CoD2, I see the exact same death animations. That's just wrong.

Now, Uncharted 2 was very different, and a good improvement from the first game, new settings and guns, bigger, and not afraid to fix what was bad in the first game, and also a nice new stealth system... Uncharted 3 is taking cinematic gaming into the multiplayer, and gives the game a new feel to it. And Killzone 3, well I dunno if much changed, it was more cinematic though, and IMO just more visually appealing. Assassins Creed... Well it's falling into bad habits, I don't really like where it's going, but new AC games still feels new and good IMO.

Also, people did complain because New Vegas was exactly like Fallout 3, but New Vegas would still be the superior game IMO because of better RPG elements.

For CoD to gain popularity again, I'd say they should stop releasing a game every year, because or else we will have another Guitar Hero on our hands... Besides, it's kind of bad for CoD because BF3 is being released, because when compared, CoD looks much more bland than it might be.

 

[Eddy-16]

Its the fanboys for me, just the way they act and behave. I can't find the quote now but it was something like this on a Skyrim Trailer:
SKYRIM IS FOR FUCKING NOOBS, ALL IT'S TRYING TO DO IS BE MW3, BUT MW3 WILL TOP THIS SHIT, ALL SKYRIM DOES IS RELEASE THE SAME GAME EVERY SINGLE YEAR, PLAY COD YOU FAGS.

Yeah, how ironic. Plus as many people have pointed out they don't really add anything so I find it gets boring really quickly.

 

[woodaba]

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.

 

[Ruiner87]

long post

Actually, i do thing people are a bit biased on this, i think cod has just as much improvements and new stuff as the game i pointed out and i DO NOT mean that in a good way, infact i would like to see more from all those franchises but that risks causing the game to fail the fans. I mean look at black ops, i did not like it much despite having little changes over mw2 as most people say.

What confuses me the most is the BF hype, i have yet to see something in bf3 that was not already in bf2 or bc2...and no i dont thin supressing is important enough to bother.

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.

 

[MorsePacific]

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

By your logic, any sequel is a rehash of the previous game.

Do you see the problem with that? A sequel is always meant to be a successor to the original and continue on from where it left off. That means that it doesn't necessarily need drastic changes in order to perform its function. New features that expand on the previous content is what drives gamers to buy a sequel.

Creating a sequel simply isn't what the CoD team does. The only direct sequel they've made in recent memory is MW2 and even that's a bit of a stretch. When most people complain about it being a rehash they mean that there were no actual changes to the formula. All of the recent CoD games have followed the same recipe: group a is attacking group b and you must kill them with weapons c-z. They have essentially the same story, gameplay, weapons, and annoying trash-talkers that every previous incarnation had. And that's exactly what each new CoD game is. It's the same game in a slightly different body. It's essentially the same as paying $60 for a roster update on Madden.

Now, you could very easily call me a hypocrite for everything above and you'd be half right. The problem is that the additions to each new Call of Duty game have been INCREASINGLY small. Each campaign is beginning to feel like it could have been DLC for CoD4 and to my knowledge there is no noticeable improvement of anything between each game. You previously mentioned Assassin's Creed as doing basically the same thing when that simply isn't the case at all.

Assassin's Creed follows the basic formula of free-running, stealth kills, and blade combat based around attacks and counters. It had a small range of weapons to allow you to perform your tasks. It also used a very terrible mission based system in order to "prep" you for your actual assassination target. Now look at Assassin's Creed II. They retconned the entire mission system and instead made all the side missions optional. On top of this they added an entirely new cast of characters in an entirely new setting with a larger array of weapons and an economy system for your home base. Add the vast graphical improvements on top and you have what amounts to almost an entirely different game. What they kept was the main formula and the overarching plot and set out to make a better game. Call of Duty does the exact opposite. They put in little tweaks, change weapon stats, and throw it in a new cover with a slightly different set of enemies to bullet-face-shank and call it a day. And make millions.

That, my friend, is why people hate Call of Duty. With its last five games it has done nothing to try to advance itself, its genre, or gaming. It is a money-sink. It's a best seller that people go absolutely apeshit for, even if they don't get as much out of it as they would an entirely new IP. Let's face facts; this kind of thinking is dragging down the entire gaming system and if we let it continue then how will we ever get to our next, possibly more innovative, money-sink?

Edit: Sorry, everyone, didn't realize how text wallish that was. Tl;dr: Call of Duty does nothing to change itself up and can keep calling each reincarnation of itself a new game, which promotes a very vicious cycle in the gaming industry.

 

[Pink Gregory]

I think fewer people care than is implied; then again, anyone who buys a CoD game full price is something of a sucker (OPINION OPINION)

Why does it even need to be addressed? So MW3 will be released, it'll probably top Black Ops on release sales, Activision makes money, world keeps turning; I don't see why that's a problem within an entertainment-based market.

 

[weker]

Seriously i can browse the internet without seeing so many people spam about it everyhwere even in non cod related videos/articles and if you say something negative about the game they are like "go play cod" like its some knida insult when in reallity its one of the most sucessfull franchises thus a very good geame. I guess its the same as halo back then when it was bashed.

But what pisses me off is how BIASED those haters are

They say that MW3 looks rehashed and same as last year.

Well, in E3 i saw uncharted 3,assasin's creed revelations and spiderman edge of time. If no one told me i would say i was looking at their predessecors, yet only cod is bashed.

In retrospective, killzone 3 and dead space 2 and fallout new vegas were exactly like their predecessors but did the fans complain? Nope.

Infact if you go take a look in game that tried to change, you will see they piss of the fans and failed like prince of persia in 2008, fans were pissed so they made a warrior within clone after that.

Hell if you take a look a the past you will see many similat situations, eg doom 1 and 2 were practicly the same with one new weapon and a bunch of monsters, when they made doom 3, everyone was pissed it changed. Same thing with blood 2 or the tomb raider series, all tomb raider games till angel of darkness were the same, after that they change the game and took their chances and the fans hated id and went back to the last 5 "Recycled" tomb raider games.

Hell even stalker series are recycled, suprisingly people only bash cod about it like all those examples i pointed out do not exist.

Another thing will be is that they say there are too many cod games and it has gone stale over the year wih no changes whhile praising bf3 which comes from a franchise who is doing the same formula for farrr longer with very few additions. Eg: BF3 is basicly bf2 with better grpaphics and destruction(since they bringing back the airplanes)

Imo this cod hate is getting out of hand and its way too biased.

most of those games are unique in the first place or at least improve graphics.
Modern Warfare 3 looks the same with not one difference so far.
all the games you named are fairly unique in their design and have no competition such as AC2 and brotherhood.
Uncharted 3 I agree with.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Ah opinions opinions, we have many and they all differ.

As we already tried to get to the bottom of this in another thread it's about personal preference, you prefer CoD so you defend it to the hilt and others do the same for other games, it's time to learn some love and understanding.

 

[Your Nightmare]

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.

 

[GeneWard]

I'm tired of it. Tired of an arcade shooter treating itself like a simulation, tired of all the macho adrenaline pumped throat cancer voices, and I'm tired of people defending it's realism to the death and then picking on battlefield because you have to make your own killstreaks (for example you have to fly a UAV or an attack chopper yourself). CoD is old, and there are a million other games I'd like to play instead. I just wish it would go away.

 

[MacJack]

So is nearly every other game. Even in the most varied games, you still end up repeating certain actions. Personally, I'd rather have a longer play time than just 4 hours before being dumped for an expanded multiplayer map.

Yeah, MW2...and how many other CoD games have really furthered the 'plot' since then?

I guess I expect more from a $60 game.

Personally? ubisoft is being waayyy too repettive, you cant deny that, assasin creed 1 was practicly 2 hours long and the rest was the same missions all over with pointless dialogues. Id rather a small game that i will replay rather the game replaying itself at he excuse of being longer. As i said its same as with uncharted 3 and killzone 3, diffirence is, one of those games had a great story for sp and the other one was bad.

OP couldn't have more selective vision if he tried. Everyone complained at Angel of Darkness? Uninformed or selective, nonsense. People were complaining as early as Tomb Raider 2, that the gameplay felt the same with nothing but slight changes like the ability to ledge-climb around corners, as a change.

And yes, half the hate is the fans. I mean ffs, I checked out the IGN youtube vid for Shadow of the Colossus HD, and no less than two comments out of the few were to the effect of, "This looks like garbage, you should play COD". I don't even have to break down the knuckle-dragging, I-only-play-COD-and-call-myself-a-gamer retardation in that. I wish that were the only time I could say I've seen that happen,but I could cite more.

So if the fanboys... sorry, the fans of COD are tired of the hate, maybe they should work on the image they project.

"OP couldn't have more selective vision if he tried."

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 (like i said the squaky wheel gets the grease) because from what i remember fans enjoyed them and till this day i see ton of people saying that the first 5 were the best and they would rather go back and play them again than play any of the new tomb raider games.
HEY take it down a notch with

"

The main thing that I dislike about the recent Call of Duty games are the short campaigns and the stories they have. When I have to pay $60.00 for a game I would at least like the single player campaign to be around 40-60 hours long if not longer. I know that is difficult to do with an FPS but I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that the campaign be at least 15-20 hours long.

In my opinion some of the recent Call of Duty games have had terrible stories. In Modern Warfare 2 it seemed like they dropped an entire sub-plot when you discovered the dead guy with the tattoos found in the house with the dead VIP. It is never mentioned again. I think one or two of Makarov's men die in the airport mission but no attention is ever paid to them.

I know the Call of Duty series is mainly known for its multiplayer but if the developers and publishers say that the story will be good than I expect it to be written well.

In which you are correct but sadly this is how things are nowdays, atlest cod campaigns are better than their competitors eg bc2, moh,homefrot.

So it begs the question are games that bad nowdays? Or is cod making other companies to lower their standards in SP campaigns?

 

[SleepyChan]

I dislike the CoD franchise because I've never been overtly fond of over-glorifying war. That may seems naive or hypocritical of a gamer, but there you have it. It may also be that I just can't stand the fan-base. A bunch of opinionated gun-nuts who think that because they've earned a bazillion achievements and can name more than one style of gun, they're God's gift to man.

 

[JochemDude]

You named all these other games, you don't see me buying those. For actually the same reason, they are just made to raise their giant dicks of profit.
Same shit, different day. If something seems interesting, refreshing or creative I'll buy it. Otherwise I'm not buying into the sequel whoring.

 

[Jimbo1212]

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.