What's with all the Modern Warefare 3 Hate?

[LGC Pominator]

As is always the case, as soon as something is popular it must be terrible, there is a similar sort of twitch reaction in the metal community.

Both gaming and heavy metal music have largely been underground markets, the fans of either (and myself a fan of both) not only tend to percieve their preffered media as the truest form of art, and therefore unlikely to be accepted by the "ignorant masses" so when games like mass effect were getting flack from the mainstream media, we all rushed to its defence, as would any rocker who remembers the whole KISS=SATAN malarkey back in the day.
But suddenly, as games began to reach a wider audience, with messages that everyone could understand, and gameplay mechanics that didn't need an encyclopaedic knowledge of the inner workings of an armoured walker came along, something bad happened...

I will use 2 examples in both media

Mass Effect 2 and Five Finger Death Punch

Both of these are wildly successful, Mass Effect 2 tore its predecessors sales record to shreds, both five finger albums have gone platinum in a matter of days.

But talk to someone on this site or on thatdevilmusic.com they are both terrible and never should have came about and are only for idiots.

But wasn't five finger "the next big thing" according to the same crowd before their albums became absolute hits?
Wasn't ME2 regarded as a brilliant continuation of the story and a shining example of what gaming could be before EVERYONE bought it?

The message here is:

YOU ARE ALL HIPSTERS!
because they were so much better when they were "underground"!

 

[Gunner 51]

There are several reasons why CoD and it's ilk are getting hated upon. Here's the main reasons for the hate - according to me.

1.) The Vocal Fans
Most of the more vocal fans are immature pubescent types. No-one likes to hear foul mouthed 12 year olds with voices that'd have the Chipmonks reaching for ear-plugs.

2.) The Publishers - Especially a Mr B. Kotick
No-one likes to pay £45 quid for a game which gets re-skinned a year down the line and then charges you an extra £30 for map packs per re-skin. In essence, you pay £75 in total for a complete game only to pay it all again next year. Plus the more informed gamers know that the developers are badly treated by the publishers.

3.) The Games are Truly Cookie Cutter Games.
The lack of tangible improvements make each successive game feel exactly the same as the last one that preceeded it.

4.) Bandwagoning
It's always fashionable to hate the popular, especially a game that brings in millions to it's publishers.

5.) Buyer Fatique
While this ties in with reason number two. People are just plain sick of buying CoD every blasted year. It's time for CoD to rest and Activision to start publishing something other than CoD or a gritty-brown-FPS. I'd recommend Singularity or a reboot of the Battletech games.

 

[Treblaine]

By your own definition of run-and-gun, I would have to agree. However, I don't agree with your definition.

I don't think ANYONE agrees with or even understands your "definition" of run-n-gun.

Excellent, so my argument is invalid because you don't understand it - now we're getting somewhere.

All I'm saying is that COD includes a lot of running, and a fuck load of gunning.
You can both move and shoot at the same time, so kindly explain to me how that is not run and gun?

Because it is impractical to play the game running and gunning.

You can walk at a brisk speed while shooting so inaccurately you literally could only hit the broad side of a barn.

The only way to hit what you are aiming at is to hang back behind cover, then aim down sights (which reduces your movement speed so much you better be in cover) and slowly pick off the targets through loopholes.

"includes a lot of running, and a fuck load of gunning"

That definition is ridiculously broad. Almost every single game released in the past 5 years - including the likes of Mirror's Edge - qualify by that "definition".

Now we all understand it, I can say firmly I cannot agree with it.

But most importantly, something I think we were beginning to lose track of is that the COD series (and by all appearances the latest COD game) is far too slow paced, linear and unimaginative.

It has level layout like a low-rent lightgun game from the 1990's, it's just the running/sprinting between cover is much more your choice and doesn't make much difference.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

snip

It sounds to me that you don't realise that COD can be played in a number of different ways...

I've heard campers tell me the game is boring before, and my reply is always 'Well of course it is - you sit in a corner all the time.'

Then there's you who says that the game is slow paced. My answer to that is;

'Well of course it is if you play like you say you do - darting between pieces of cover and standing still whilst aiming.'

There is indeed a slow-paced capability in COD, but the game is in NO way limited to it. If you don't enjoy your tactic, try something a little different.

COD can easily be fast paced, and regardless of the way in which you choose to play, you can't take that away from it.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

snip!

It appears you've misunderstood me. I'm not defending Zelda, I'm very well aware Zelda is pretty much the same game every time and I never said it wasn't. All I was doing was pointing out that it has actually tried to do something new in the past in terms of gameplay. Sure, the gameplay only changed for 1 game but 1 game is more than CoD.

 

[Treblaine]

The message here is:

YOU ARE ALL HIPSTERS!
because they were so much better when they were "underground"!

This is a fallacy.

The point is Hipsters claim to not like popular things because they don't care what they actually consume, only what they APPEAR to be consuming.

We DO care about what we are consuming and right now not JUST for what others think they are serving us reheated leftovers and charging us like it was gourmet cuisine! We genuinely care that we are getting almost the same shit every year for such a large price tag considering the cost of the numerous map packs.

But popularity DOES play into this. Because if a game is bad but ends up in a bargain bin, no one cares. But if a really crap game takes billions of dollars of peoples spending money, so much gaming time and so much media attention... yet it's pretty shit. That makes people mad. People are fed up of great games getting overlooked while the same crap rakes in billions.

It makes people mad that mediocrity is all online community is interested in, that places like IGN seem to hold it as a benchmark for every First Person Shooter.

Not JUST because it is popular, but because it's crap, and the popularity just rubs it in.

 

[Treblaine]

But at least Zelda has done something new in some of it's titles. Wind Waker with it's new art style and Phantom Hourglass with a whole new take on gameplay using only the Stylus. Has CoD ever tried something new? No, every year it's running about aiming and shooting in the middle of explosions, explosions and, oh, more explosions.

>Same game Every year
>Zelda game

pick one.

There hasn't been a proper Zelda game in over Half a decade!

After 25 years there haven't even been even 8 proper home console releases of Zelda games.

And no one else is making games remotely like Zelda, it's all hard RPGs like Dragon's Age or Gears Of War slash-fest. Zelda may build on previous work but you could hardly say you are overwhelmed by the familiarity, each game tries to change as much as it can while still remaining part of the same series. I don't mean superficial changes like Final Fantasy, I mean fundamental changes to the environment and interactions.

So - the ironically named "trollpwner" - you can quit it with such weasel words, you are NOT going to excuse such incredibly trashy works as Call of Duty with innuendo that such universally lauded franchises as Zelda are somehow just as bad.

BUAHAHA! This is priceless! I like how you instinctually leap to defend Zelda as innovative and that you don't mindlessly defend it, even though I said nothing of the sort! Insecure, much?

O.K..... Let's say you're right. Let's reverse-engineer this, eh?

But Cod changes so much every year! There are new art styles and sometimes we change the controls!! God, it's so much more innovative than Zelda! They have the same old story, every year! So much of it is all the same! And we change the set pieces and tinker with the gameplay! It's really innovative really!

Right, does that stand up? No? But it uses all the same arguements you do, and heaven knows, you're never wrong about anything, are you?

It just looks silly when Zelda fans call other games "uninnovative". Innovation is not the series' strong point. Come back when it doesn't have you saving the same bloody princess from the same bloody dude with the same bloody bomerang!

You made a snide comment, I called you out on it. The comment that you cut out (of course you did, far too incriminating) was:

Some guy: "I guess people are just tired of playing the same game re-released every year.

Trollpwn: "How ironic that your (avatar) picture is of Link..."

Do not play dumb with me. Your implication is clear that there is some sense of irony in a (supposed) Zelda fan not liking it when a game series fails to innovate; obvious implication that Zelda has not innovated.

Don't be all "I said nothing of the sort" when you said EXACTLY of the sort and now you are ashamed of yourself, you are tryng to weasel your way out of it.

Your COD-strawman is also is a desperate fallacy, which is: if someone fails to argue that a false thing is true, then he is automatically wrong if he uses the same argument for something that is true. I could argue that Charles Manson is innocent of murder, a bad argument. But that does not mean I cannot use the same argument for someone who clearly IS INNOCENT of murder!

It is simply not true that COD significantly changes from game to game. You CAN argue that the Zelda games have significantly changed from game to game. And it would be farcical to say they've released games anywhere approaching the frequency of COD games.

It just looks silly when Zelda fans call other games "uninnovative".

Desperate.

No one used the word "uninnovative" except for YOU! Yet you claim we said it as you put it in quotation marks. What are quotation marks for other than quoting? You are quoting no one but a made up straw-man, a completely concocted Zelda fanboy designed by you to be as hostile a characterisation as possible.

You think you know all the tricks and no one else does, you think you can get away with all this trash talk and still play the innocent observer. No. It is blatantly obvious you are deliberately causing consternation with snide attacks and hostile characterisations.

You have clearly have not played a Zelda game to completion if you think it is about "saving the princess" have you been living under a rock since 1986?!?

It's about defeating Ganondorf

Now that is a fair argument, that Ganondorf is too much of a predictably repeating villain, but then again it wouldn't be a Zelda game without him. It's not the end that matters, it is HOW you get there. Be it by foot, horse, boat, train or even flying!

 

[Treblaine]

snip

It sounds to me that you don't realise that COD can be played in a number of different ways...

I've heard campers tell me the game is boring before, and my reply is always 'Well of course it is - you sit in a corner all the time.'

Then there's you who says that the game is slow paced. My answer to that is;

'Well of course it is if you play like you say you do - darting between pieces of cover and standing still whilst aiming.'

There is indeed a slow-paced capability in COD, but the game is in NO way limited to it. If you don't enjoy your tactic, try something a little different.

COD can easily be fast paced, and regardless of the way in which you choose to play, you can't take that away from it.

Look, you don't get why people camp: because it works.

The very "aim down sights to increase accuracy but reduce speed" favours the campers.

Because someone rushing around the corner and there is someone already there behind cover with sights raised; the attacker is screwed. A camper gets easily gets more kills than deaths this way, especially if each kill they move to a slightly different location. I get loads of kills this way advancing with caution to a good spot then raining fire.

The only real counter to campers is to GET KILLED, watch the kill-cam, try to figure out where they were camping from, then traipse across the map back to where that camper was and throw a nade in there when they could easily have moved to a slightly different position.

When I try to play COD like Counterstrike and I die a lot, it is all about playing defensively and advancing with extreme caution.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Because it's popular.

 

[mrdude2010]

What has been different in each game that warrants 60 dollars?

I do love the series though, it keeps the stupid people off my games.

but how do you get rid of the arrogent people?

forcing them to spell "arrogant" properly =p jkjk, but for future reference

and sadly, arrogant people will always be in video games. go to the bungie forum and you will see what i'm talking about. most of the people on that forum are either complete idiots or complete idiots who think their k/d in big team battle makes them a god. even in games with large skill gaps, the people on the upper end of the skill gap tend to be arrogant douchecones.

The bungie forums WHY WOULD YOU SENT ME THEIR.

arrogant morons at their finest (or least fine, depending on your point of view)

I did not think it was possible to stuff your head that far up your own ass but NOW I KNOW. I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO UNSEE.

remember that bungie takes a ton of input from their community, specifically the forums, and you realize why reach is what it is

 

[AssassinFisH]

Because its fashionable. Trust me, the reason most forums are filled with hate is because the people who love it, can't get away from it long enough to post!!!

I love CoD personlly, and im proud to say so.

 

[Treblaine]

But popularity DOES play into this. Because if a game is bad but ends up in a bargain bin, no one cares. But if a really crap game takes billions of dollars of peoples spending money, so much gaming time and so much media attention... yet it's pretty shit. That makes people mad. People are fed up of great games getting overlooked while the same crap rakes in billions.

It makes people mad that mediocrity is all online community is interested in, that places like IGN seem to hold it as a benchmark for every First Person Shooter.

Not JUST because it is popular, but because it's crap, and the popularity just rubs it in.

This entire arguement of yours boils down to you dont like what they like and since their game is more popular it has to be the epitome of mediocrity. You did not make a single valid point other then the people who dont like it dont like it and its more popular then the games they like.

Why do you care what game other people play and what they spend their money on? Why is it bad to hold the most popular first person shooter out there as a benchmark for other first person shooters? They are all trying to copy its success anyways. That is kind of like saying its silly to compare a god of war clone to god of war.

Give do you give me an actual reason why people hate call of duty so much and as I said earlier in my post it being more popular then the game they like is not a valid reason. Ok thats not exactly true, it is a perfectly valid reason if you have the maturity level of a six year old.

I never said the popularity ALONE was the reason to hate it, just that it exacerbated existing hate. I don't hate Lost because it was a popular TV show, nor Inception because that had good box office sales. I like Gears of War, Uncharted 2 and Halo 3.

But I didn't like Twilight, I sure hate it with the Twi-hards chattering on for more twilight-like vampire movies with emo big eye douchebags who do nothing but moap and sparkle because they're a vampire.

I'll give you 10 reasons why I don't like COD:

1) Activision have treated their employees in an absolutely shameful way such as the refusal to pay West and Zampella, then throwing them out of their offices by hired goons, to quickly hire another team yet not make any attempt to adjust the release schedule for adequate production time.
2) Map packs are blatant price gouging with their $15 price yet split up in many parts, with too many re-releases, the result is the community is split a dozen different ways. Unlikely to meet someone with the same map packs
3) perks fundamentally unbalance the game as none of the perks have a corresponding "foil", everyone just makes the most overpowered and indefensible (except by camping) class possible, you also have no indication what kind of foe you are facing
4) Air-support killstreaks paralyse the game being far more annoying to the other players than they are satisfying to use.
5) The wide HUD crosshairs and huge speed-hit from using weapons ADS favours camping more than any other game type, as if you are in cover already and sighted in already at the access point you have a huge advantage
6) the weapons function near identically: automatic hitscan weapons with a little recoil, which makes gameplay way too similar.
7) there is a clear weapon superiority; pros with no cons to the point where some are just too overpowered. Not like other games with weapons scaling that have a related nerf for every buff (fast shot but small capacity)
8) patches are slow to come and inadequate, instead of a tangential disadvantage (like a super accurate weapon with only iron sights, or rapid fire weapon with small capacity mags) they just nerf the very thing that the gun was liked for, making it worthless.
9) The poor online support, continued dependence on client-side hosting on consoles and generally poor coding on PC if there are dedicated servers at all!
10) The games are so god damn similar, each one more similar than the previous, only with shorter campaigns and stupider plots that just boggle the mind

COD games aren't the "best" games by choice, they are there by luck.

COD has been riding the Network Effect. People don't join facebook because it's the best service, just because everyone else is using it. People buy into COD online because everyone else is and want to join their friends (that XBL/PSN encourage with invites) even though there is little to no team interaction. They ar

 

[rutcommapat]

I hate Call of Duty because it's no longer possible to put the words "Call of Duty" in a thread title without four or five aimless arguments starting.

 

[TheEndlessSleep]

it is all about playing defensively and advancing with extreme caution.

That's exactly the opposite of how I play and I still use the sights.

For me, Its all about running around and quickly snapping in and out of the sights to deal with people as you see them, not creeping around holding LT and waiting for someone to walk into your view.

There is no ONE right way to play.

Hence, everyone will have a different experience.

Oh yeah - and I understand that camping 'works', but its still a fucking boring way to play in my opinion.

In the end, it comes down to the fact that we obviously play the game very differently, and that there's really no point arguing about that because this game incorperates several different playstyles quite comfortably.

 

[SEPECAT]

I didn't bother reading through 5 pages of this to see if it's already been said.

These threads need to fucking stop.

 

[Treblaine]

By your own definition of run-and-gun, I would have to agree. However, I don't agree with your definition.

I don't think ANYONE agrees with or even understands your "definition" of run-n-gun.

Excellent, so my argument is invalid because you don't understand it - now we're getting somewhere.

All I'm saying is that COD includes a lot of running, and a fuck load of gunning.
You can both move and shoot at the same time, so kindly explain to me how that is not run and gun?

Because it is impractical to play the game running and gunning.

You can walk at a brisk speed while shooting so inaccurately you literally could only hit the broad side of a barn.

The only way to hit what you are aiming at is to hang back behind cover, then aim down sights (which reduces your movement speed so much you better be in cover) and slowly pick off the targets through loopholes.

"includes a lot of running, and a fuck load of gunning"

That definition is ridiculously broad. Almost every single game released in the past 5 years - including the likes of Mirror's Edge - qualify by that "definition".

Now we all understand it, I can say firmly I cannot agree with it.

But most importantly, something I think we were beginning to lose track of is that the COD series (and by all appearances the latest COD game) is far too slow paced, linear and unimaginative.

It has level layout like a low-rent lightgun game from the 1990's, it's just the running/sprinting between cover is much more your choice and doesn't make much difference.

Too slow paced ?? It's too fast paced for a supposed "realistic shooter". The combination of the tiny maps and fast character movement make it very chaotic and fast paced. The movement is very floaty, with no sense of gravity or momentum to it. Plus you can press the sprint button and cover so much ground in a few seconds it would make Carl Lewis jealous.

Compared to WHAT?!

The normal running speed in Painkiller is about the same as sprinting speed in COD, while painkiller you can bunnyhop like crazy.

Just because COD is faster than Halo that doesn't make it the fastest game around.

 

[Kryeed]

pretty soon it won't be numbered, and they'll be called 'Call of duty 2011' then 2012

 

[krazykidd]

Because its popular. Yup, that's about it. I like to refer to this phenomenon as "bandwagon hating": many people hate series with flimsy to no reason at all simply because they see a lot of other people doing it. It ends up creating this odd sort-of chain reaction where there is this one franchise of game that everyone just loves to hate. It just so happens that popular games are easy targets for people's hatred, and few games are as popular as the COD franchise. It's this weird faux-community building that is especially prevalent in the gaming community because of the widespread cynicism present in it.

Wait then why doesn't the opposite happen ? Since they're is a lot of people that do like they game and praise it ( look as many people hate that love it ) why isn't there bandwagon love for this game .

OT : because it's the same game recycled , hell i wont say it's not fun but why is the hell would i pay 69$ every year for the same game ? Since CoD 4 it's the same, i think the people that hate it are people that got fooled into buying the same game twice or three times .

 

[TheTim]

I used to be all in to COD, was always great at it. But then... then i discovered battlefield bad company 2. The style of play, the destruction, the teamwork, just shits all over call of duty.

 

[DailonCmann]

The reason that there's a lot of hate is because people are starting to realize that the choices they have to choose from is becoming more and more stagnate.

You can only take to Call of Duty series so far before it descends into an unaware self parody and repetition, same with Halo, Quake, and sadly enough from what was shown from New Vegas, the Fallout franchise as well. All of these games have become more like brands put on a game than an attempt to extend an actual storyline.

Do you actually believe that these series are so good that people should keep trying to retell and rehash the same stories over and over again? Is Call of Duty so good that that studio should spend all that effort, all that man power, trying to keep little more than a name alive? Even people who aren't well spoken can see this in some way and that is why they flame the Modern Warfare 3 threads.