people are only bashing COD because, for the most part they want battlefield to succeed. As a community we need a new shooter and the Battlefield series would be a great change of pace.
This "cod hate" is getting out of hand.
- Thread starter MacJack
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Where my CoD hate stems from is the fact that its players fancy themselves the "core" gaming group. While that may be true from a financial point of view, "core" has a different meaning to those of us who have been gaming since the Nintendo/SEGA wars of the 90's. To me and my fellows "core" means you've been gaming your whole life, and have a genuine interest multiple genres, across multiple platforms, and have fond memories of gaming from youth.
Heck I've had CoD players come into my store and ask me "What are those grey boxes on the shelf over there?" as they point at an NES, SNES, and N64... and they are my age. /facepalm
I'm not saying all CoD players are like that, because they are not, but buying a several hundred dollar console to play one game, makes not a true gamer.
Also this is not intended to upset younger gamers either, you can be five and still be more of a core player than a person who plays only one game.
Heck I've had CoD players come into my store and ask me "What are those grey boxes on the shelf over there?" as they point at an NES, SNES, and N64... and they are my age. /facepalm
I'm not saying all CoD players are like that, because they are not, but buying a several hundred dollar console to play one game, makes not a true gamer.
Also this is not intended to upset younger gamers either, you can be five and still be more of a core player than a person who plays only one game.
As I recall the primary complaint against Angel of Darkness wasn't that it was different, that was a side order in the main course of terribly executed coding.Rpground said:
There's three actually, Shadow of Chernobyl, Clear Sky, and Call of Pripyat. But, rather ironically, Clear Sky is actually an argument in favor of your point. In addition to having a heaping serving of buggyness, the game itself was altered in favor of action and combat with human foes, rather than the bleak variety of survival horror the first title had.Rpground said:
While a lot of the bitching was because the game for being flat out shoddy work, there was also a fairly vocal chunk that bitched them out for "abandoning" the heart of the first game.
Call of Pripyat reverted into Shadow of Chernobyl style survival horror. And while (in a fanboyish moment), I'll claim it's iteratively better, the core of the game is back in line with the original (slow survival horror, with brief and widely distributed action sequences against other humans).
Another example that comes to mind is the Rainbow Six franchise. It's been getting progressively more action oriented as time goes on, to the point that Vegas 2 is actually a really entertaining run and gun, but there's a very vocal minority who consistently ***** out the franchise for abandoning it's core principles. That is to say: a highly tactical shooter that requires hours of game play, which can all be wasted with little or no warning because the AI spazzed out.
We haven't seen a proper Battlefield game since 2142, and even them some people don't consider that a proper Battlefield game. The Bad Company games are spin-off ones, with a kind of interesting story. They don't take themselves super seriously.MacJack said:
Also, yeah, expansion packs. Usually 6-8 months after release. Battlefield 2 got one xpack, and a smaller addition or two you could pay a few dollars for. That added new maps, weapons and an entirely new faction.
And expansion packs, would be more akin to map packs with way more content. CoD charged $15 for maps in MW and MW2. MW2's even dared to have recycled maps from the first MW game.
Battlefield games aren't on a yearly release schedule like CoD and Madden. 2142 came out in 2006 and was a huge departure from all previous games in the series.
Also they actually change up the series and try new things. When was the last time you saw a building completely collapse in a multiplayer match in a CoD game? Never ago. Since they haven't even dared to change the engine they've been using for 6 years and that has been around for ten.
They've resorted to bragging about getting a 10 year old engine to run nice and smooth on consoles. Good work guys. Time well spent!
I believe that almost every modern game is a re-hash, retooling, or remake if you look far back enough in gaming history (Trine, a game that seems fairly unique is a re-hash of Realms of Chaos for example, which itself is reusing concepts from Lost Vikings etc. ), I agree with you there, that's how creative industries work.
The problem CoD has is that it does not add to a narrative, while adding too little to the gameplay, aesthetics and weapons list to justify a entire new game every 8-12 months for a lot of people. They feel like they are expansions or DLC, not stand-alone games and so are regarded as overpriced.
That is why I think that CoD receives so much flak, apart from some people's knee-jerk reaction to hate the mainstream and the CoD community.
The problem CoD has is that it does not add to a narrative, while adding too little to the gameplay, aesthetics and weapons list to justify a entire new game every 8-12 months for a lot of people. They feel like they are expansions or DLC, not stand-alone games and so are regarded as overpriced.
That is why I think that CoD receives so much flak, apart from some people's knee-jerk reaction to hate the mainstream and the CoD community.
Not really, because halo was never really hated, just shrugged off for being popular and innovative...yes sometimes the masses don't make sense.MacJack said:
Most of these actually try and innovate and tell a good story in one aspect or another, COD is nothing more than a easy to spot formula with little to no replay value (except for finest hour and 2...those were good)
at least they tried to change instead of be a michael bay clone in video game form.
Doom 3's story was subpar and tomb raider never got the critical acclaim or the sales COD did.
stalker isnt a linear FPS from one of the biggest companies out there. and has really damn good aspects to it that are compelling.
battlefield isn't released every year on the dot, they take time to develop the story and enhance the multiplayer and BEST OF ALL: MAKE THE GUNS SOUND LIKE GUNS AND NOT SQUEAKY TOYS!!!
seriously COD's been useing the same gun sounds since the first game...that all ways annoyed me. And it has been shown that BF3 will have an actual story to it that BF2 didn't...leaving me to question if you've played any battlefield game before bad company. (Since BF2 was nothing but multiplayer)
wouldn't really say biased since most of the haters played COD back in the day and realized it was shit by the time MW2 rolled out.
For the OP, just because a game is a successful franchise player does not necessarily mean it's a good game. That statement alone is biased, the whole subject...no matter which side of it you're on, is biased. I think people are ready for something different. The game is successful, i've played all of them and have hated the multiplayer in each one...that's a rant for another day.
It's the precedent though, it's the came every other shooter is compared to now. You can say that the same was done for halo, but both are different franchises and play very differently. So now we have each as a comparable model. With any luck, BF3 will set a new graphical precedent. I agree completely that it's a franchise using the same tools it's always had, but I think the improved graphics and the franchise going back to its roots that made it a success, are going to push things a little further.
The hate that COD gets is eventually just going to switch over to another franchise, if you get upset over hate bashing for just one franchise series you're going to be living in a world of frustration as this has happened generationally since the beginning of time. Will always be loads of haters for anything. That's what happens when creatures are given free will.
It's the precedent though, it's the came every other shooter is compared to now. You can say that the same was done for halo, but both are different franchises and play very differently. So now we have each as a comparable model. With any luck, BF3 will set a new graphical precedent. I agree completely that it's a franchise using the same tools it's always had, but I think the improved graphics and the franchise going back to its roots that made it a success, are going to push things a little further.
The hate that COD gets is eventually just going to switch over to another franchise, if you get upset over hate bashing for just one franchise series you're going to be living in a world of frustration as this has happened generationally since the beginning of time. Will always be loads of haters for anything. That's what happens when creatures are given free will.
I just loved the bit that implies 'it's a successful franchise therefore the games are good' Rebecca Black is successful and she sure as hell isn't good, so there is no viable logic there whatsoever. Also I agree with some on other posts on here that because they are released so close together they feel a lot more repetitive and mundane than other franchises 'cos each new CoD game brings barely anything new to the franchise. So generally just being a fanboy comes to mind....
Isn't MW3 the 5th copy/pasted cod game in a row? Sequels are normal, but there's been no change in the cod series (other than some slightly varied weapons and progressively less inspired ports) in a very long time.
No new engine, less and less content per release, more expensive than usual dlc, the threat of subscription models, the horrible standard of the PC ports, yearly releases etc. All while being incredibly popular. Here's the end analogy: CoD is to videogames what Rhianna is to music.
Comparing cod to crysis, farcry 2, half life or battlefield bc 2 and just how outdated and uninspired cod is really shows. Hell, even go back and play cod 1/2 and compare it to the newer releases...
Gamers, especially those 'oh so eletist' PC gamers and/or anyone who liked infinity ward have good reason to hate the franchise, it represents the bad side of gaming becoming more lucrative.
No new engine, less and less content per release, more expensive than usual dlc, the threat of subscription models, the horrible standard of the PC ports, yearly releases etc. All while being incredibly popular. Here's the end analogy: CoD is to videogames what Rhianna is to music.
Comparing cod to crysis, farcry 2, half life or battlefield bc 2 and just how outdated and uninspired cod is really shows. Hell, even go back and play cod 1/2 and compare it to the newer releases...
Gamers, especially those 'oh so eletist' PC gamers and/or anyone who liked infinity ward have good reason to hate the franchise, it represents the bad side of gaming becoming more lucrative.
Most of the people who play CoD are embarrassments. They shell out £50 every year for a reskinned game, then attempt to reflect this back at others by refusing to accept that games like Assassins Creed and Uncharted are deep, immersive experiences, whereas their preferred title is essentially the same as the previous one, being a FPS with a short campaign, and enjoyable but repetitive multiplayer. I enjoy CoD, but I dislike the franchise in general and usually spend my time on worthwhile games.
Of course, one example is a rehash of a relatively unpopular game that probably only won't get bashed because of midling levels of popularity (Spider-Man). Beenox's last entry got bashed enough for other flaws the repetition will likely be the least of the problems of the sequel.MacJack said:
And one of them offers heavy advancements in both story and gameplay (AC3).
And while I admit to not caring much about Uncharted 3, the last title did bring large advances from the first game.
As for another example, Fallout NV, it offered what its counterpart in F3 did, including a massive story. However, it was also bashed by a lot of people for glitches and other issues, so it's a pretty bad example.
Tell me what updates CoD is offering this year that put it on par with the examples you compared it to that both were not bashed for their flaws (Fallout) and were even remotely comparably popular (not Spider-Man). Merely being iterative sequels is not enough to compare them.
Did you just say that Dead Space 2 and Fallout: New Vegas were the same as their predecessors?
Of course Edge of Time is going to look like other spiderman games. It's still spiderman!
And why are you comparing Doom to games today?
I've played all the recent CoD and the storys are nothing special. The multiplayer is good maybe even the best but still not enough to hold the games up by itself. The only parts of CoD that me and my friends come back to are the zombie modes which is incredibly ironic, seeing how they aren't part of the "core" gameplay in any way.
Really, the only people I know who are still nuts about CoD have been playing the CoD games since they came out or are 12 years old and can't get off unless something explodes every other second.
PS. the last good CoD game was MW1./story
Get the fuck out! No, it wasn't and if F:NV was exactly like 3, I would've liked it a bit more.MacJack said:
Of course Edge of Time is going to look like other spiderman games. It's still spiderman!
And why are you comparing Doom to games today?
And if no one told me, I would say you're retarded. Ooooooooooooor you've never played any of those games and are basing all of this completely just off seeing the trailers. Dumbass.MacJack said:
I've played all the recent CoD and the storys are nothing special. The multiplayer is good maybe even the best but still not enough to hold the games up by itself. The only parts of CoD that me and my friends come back to are the zombie modes which is incredibly ironic, seeing how they aren't part of the "core" gameplay in any way.
Really, the only people I know who are still nuts about CoD have been playing the CoD games since they came out or are 12 years old and can't get off unless something explodes every other second.
PS. the last good CoD game was MW1./story
My problem with CoD is that it does nothing to further it's story, and spends all the effort into multiplayer. Even Halo Reach, which was mainly Multiplayer, mixed up the story, it kept true to the others, gave a pretty good campaign and pushed the envelope. CoD to me has gone stale, keeps doing the same thing over and over and wants us to spend hundreds of dollars on a version that they're going to replace in a year.
I like playing CoD multiplayer, don't get me wrong, it's still really fun, but I refuse to give them my hard earned money for the same game as last time just polished a bit. I can rent it for free from work, and eventually own it for cheap instead of giving them my money
The only good CoD single player I've played was CoD4, because it was unique then and brilliantly executed, MW2 was okay near the end, but got stale quite quickly. Haven't yet bothered with Blops, don't really care to, it could surprise me, but instead of taking a chance on a possibly lousy campaign, I'll spend my hours on something with more promise
I like playing CoD multiplayer, don't get me wrong, it's still really fun, but I refuse to give them my hard earned money for the same game as last time just polished a bit. I can rent it for free from work, and eventually own it for cheap instead of giving them my money
The only good CoD single player I've played was CoD4, because it was unique then and brilliantly executed, MW2 was okay near the end, but got stale quite quickly. Haven't yet bothered with Blops, don't really care to, it could surprise me, but instead of taking a chance on a possibly lousy campaign, I'll spend my hours on something with more promise
yes it`s all true BUT we forgot.
cod is a big franchise that`s why there`s a lot of complaining.
NOW let`s see wha`t happens when you ask gamers about sports game.
mmm lets say Fifa,nba and WWE games.
yes engine from 4 years ago (you betcha) no updated rosters so every year a game can be pooped out (yes ofcourse) but it seems rather quit here.
WHY?
cod is a big franchise that`s why there`s a lot of complaining.
NOW let`s see wha`t happens when you ask gamers about sports game.
mmm lets say Fifa,nba and WWE games.
yes engine from 4 years ago (you betcha) no updated rosters so every year a game can be pooped out (yes ofcourse) but it seems rather quit here.
WHY?
